Immigration Law Update 2026: Deportation, Asylum, Green Cards, H-1B, TPS, DACA, and the Cases That Control Every Answer

Last updated September 21, 2026. This article is the current state of U.S. immigration law in one place: who can be deported and through which of the five removal pipelines, who can stay and under what status, how and where and when to apply for asylum, a green card, or an H-1B visa, and the Supreme Court decisions, circuit splits, and pending appeals that control every answer. Every case links to the full opinion on LawDiver; every party brief links to the ingested filing on LawDiver; federal statutes link to LawDiver's U.S. Code reader; regulations and agency pages link to free government sources.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Immigration outcomes turn on facts, deadlines, and fast-moving court orders — several holdings described here changed within the last ninety days. Before filing anything, traveling, or responding to ICE, confirm the current rules with a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ-recognized accredited representative.

The 2026 immigration landscape in 90 seconds

Five developments define immigration law right now:

1. The Supreme Court closed the courthouse door on TPS terminations. In Mullin v. Doe, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), decided June 25, 2026, the Court held 6–3 that 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) bars judicial review of every non-constitutional challenge to a Temporary Protected Status termination — including procedural and consultation failures. Haiti and Syria terminations proceeded immediately; most other designations followed.
2. The Court green-lit turning asylum seekers away at the line. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), decided the same day, the Court held 6–3 that a noncitizen standing in Mexico has not "arrived in the United States" under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1), so border officials may meter and turn back asylum seekers before they cross — reversing the Ninth Circuit and validating a practice dating to 2016.
3. Birthright citizenship survived. In Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), decided June 30, 2026, the Court held that children born on U.S. soil to unlawfully or temporarily present parents are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, following United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and struck Executive Order 14160.
4. The $100,000 H-1B fee is blocked — for now. The District of Massachusetts vacated the September 2025 proclamation's implementing policy nationwide on June 8, 2026 (California v. Mullin, No. 1:25-cv-13829), holding the fee operates as an unauthorized tax; the First Circuit denied a stay on July 24, 2026 (State of California v. Mullin, No. 26-1699). USCIS is not collecting the fee while the appeal proceeds, though the underlying proclamation was extended through September 21, 2027.
5. Asylum at the southern border remains largely suspended under Presidential Proclamation 10888. The D.C. Circuit held the Proclamation unlawful on April 24, 2026 (RAICES v. Mullin, No. 25-5243), rehearing en banc was denied July 23, and the mandate is stayed; the government's certiorari petition (Mullin v. RAICES, No. 26-239) was filed August 24, 2026, with the response due September 23. Meanwhile, withholding-of-removal and Convention Against Torture screening continue at the border.

Quick answers to the questions people are searching

Ways people can be deported: every removal path explained

"Deportation" is now called removal, and it runs through five different pipelines. Which pipeline you are in determines your rights, your speed, and your defenses.

Inadmissibility vs. deportability: the first fork

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) divides removal grounds into two lists:

• Grounds of inadmissibility — INA § 212, 8 U.S.C. § 1182. Applied to people seeking admission at a port of entry and to people who entered without inspection. Key categories: health-related grounds; crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT); controlled-substance offenses; multiple criminal convictions with five or more years of aggregate sentences; prostitution and commercialized vice; immigration violators (smugglers, document fraudsters, willful misrepresenters); unlawful presence after a prior removal (the permanent bar); public charge; labor-certification violations.
• Grounds of deportability — INA § 237, 8 U.S.C. § 1227. Applied to people already admitted. Key categories: crimes committed after admission; status violations (overstaying, unauthorized work, failure to maintain status); document fraud; smuggling; unlawful voting; public charge within five years of entry; draft evasion; persecutors of others.

Why the fork matters: lawful permanent residents are generally charged under the deportability grounds and receive full removal hearings before an immigration judge. People treated as "arriving aliens" or entrants without inspection are charged under the inadmissibility grounds and can be shunted into fast-track procedures — expedited removal, reinstatement, administrative removal — with far fewer procedural rights.

Grounds of removal: the full list

Criminal grounds. These generate the most removal cases with the fewest defenses:

• Aggravated felony — INA § 101(a)(43), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). A term of art covering roughly fifty offense categories: murder; drug trafficking; firearms trafficking; crimes of violence with a one-year sentence; theft or burglary with a one-year sentence; fraud over $10,000; tax evasion over $10,000; alien smuggling; document fraud; failure to appear with a two-year sentence; obstruction of justice; perjury; commercial bribery; many sex offenses; and more. The consequences are severe: mandatory detention; no cancellation of removal for permanent residents; no asylum if a sentence was imposed; administrative removal without a hearing for certain drug and firearms offenders under INA § 238(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1228; and a permanent bar on reentry. Courts apply the categorical approach: what matters is the statute of conviction, not what the person actually did. The landmark applications: Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (a second misdemeanor possession conviction is not an aggravated felony), Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (social sharing of a small amount of marijuana is not drug trafficking), and Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) (the conviction must tie to a federally controlled substance). And Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148 (2018) struck the residual clause of the "crime of violence" definition as unconstitutionally vague — saving thousands of removal cases from the aggravated-felony channel.
• Crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) — 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A). One CIMT within five years of admission with a potential one-year sentence, or two CIMTs not arising from a single scheme at any time, makes a noncitizen deportable. The petty-offense exception lives on the inadmissibility side (§ 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)).
• Controlled substances — a single conviction (or admission of the elements) relating to a federally controlled substance is a removal ground, with one narrow exception: a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana for personal use.
• Firearms offenses; domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, neglect, or abandonment; violations of protection orders — each an independent deportability ground under § 237(a)(2).
• Failure to register as a sex offender; espionage, sabotage, treason, sedition; terrorist activity — grounds with almost no available waivers.
• The collateral consequence of any conviction. Even when a conviction does not trigger removal, defense counsel must advise noncitizen clients of the immigration risk: Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) made failure to do so ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) later held a defendant who would have gone to trial but for that failure can show prejudice even when the prosecution's case was overwhelming.

Immigration-status grounds.

• Overstay and failure to maintain status — the most common ground. Unlawful presence over 180 days triggers a three-year reentry bar; over one year triggers a ten-year bar (INA § 212(a)(9)(B)). Reentry after a removal order — or after one year of aggregate unlawful presence — triggers the permanent bar (§ 212(a)(9)(C)), waivable only by I-601 filed ten years after departure.
• Entry without inspection (EWI) — presence after illegal entry is itself an inadmissibility ground (§ 212(a)(6)(A)).
• Fraud or willful misrepresentation — § 212(a)(6)(C)(i); a lifetime bar, waivable for spouses, sons, and daughters of citizens and LPRs on an extreme-hardship showing (Form I-601).
• False claim to U.S. citizenship — § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii); no waiver except narrow grandfathering for claims made before September 30, 1996 or by children of citizens raised in the U.S. since childhood.
• Smuggling — § 212(a)(6)(E), including encouraging or assisting a spouse or child to enter illegally.
• Unlawful voting — § 212(a)(10)(D); frequently litigated because noncitizens are sometimes registered to vote by DMV error without understanding the consequence.
• Marriage fraud — INA § 204(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) permanently bars a later family petition if a prior one was found fraudulent or attempted fraudulent.

The five fast-track removal pipelines

Most removals never reach a full hearing before an immigration judge. The fast tracks:

1. Expedited removal — INA § 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). A single CBP officer can order removal without a hearing for arriving aliens who lack valid documents, and — under the January 20, 2025 Executive Order 14167 expansion — for people apprehended in the interior who cannot establish continuous presence for the statutory period. The only screening is whether the person expresses a fear of return, which triggers a credible-fear interview. In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (2020), the Supreme Court held that habeas review of an expedited removal order is limited to the three questions in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2): whether the petitioner is an alien, whether the order was issued, and whether the petitioner was lawfully admitted or paroled.
2. Reinstatement of removal — INA § 241(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). If you reentered after a prior removal order, the old order is reinstated administratively: no hearing, no relief except a limited reasonable-fear screening for withholding of removal and CAT protection. In Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 522 (2021), the Court held reinstated aliens awaiting reasonable-fear proceedings are detained under § 1231 — not § 1226 — so the Zadvydas six-month presumption does not apply to them.
3. Administrative removal for aggravated felons — INA § 238(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b): non-LPRs convicted of an aggravated felony can be removed on a paper record, with no immigration judge at all.
4. Alien Enemies Act (AEA) removals — a 1798 wartime statute, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., invoked by proclamation in March 2025 against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The Supreme Court intervened twice on the emergency docket: in J.G.G. v. Trump (April 7, 2025, per curiam), the Court required that AEA detainees receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest the gang designation in habeas proceedings before removal; and in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 606 U.S. 460 (2025), the Court unanimously rejected the government's argument that no court could hear the habeas petition of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national with withholding-of-removal protection who was flown to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. AEA litigation over who counts as an "enemy alien," what process is owed, and whether the AEA authorizes removal of people who are not gang members continues in the district courts; Abrego Hernandez v. Blanche (D. Nev. 2026) is one live example.
5. Standard removal proceedings — the full path: a Notice to Appear (NTA) filed with the immigration court; a master calendar hearing; an individual (merits) hearing. Two Supreme Court decisions police the NTA: Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018) held that an NTA lacking the time and place of the first hearing does not trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal, and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021), held a later document cannot cure the defect — the single NTA must contain everything. Thousands of cases have been terminated on these grounds, and the defects are still being litigated (see Silva v. Garland (1st Cir. 2022)).

At trial-type proceedings, the government must prove the removability of an admitted alien by clear and convincing evidence; for entrants without inspection, its own records can meet the burden by clear-and-convincing standards under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3). Burden of proof on applications for relief generally sits with the applicant.

Detention: mandatory, discretionary, and how long is too long

• 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) — discretionary detention during proceedings, with a bond hearing before an immigration judge (statutory minimum bond $1,500).
• 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) — mandatory detention without bond for criminal and terrorism-related grounds. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) upheld § 1226(c) against a due-process challenge, crediting the government's representation that such detention is brief. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) held the statute contains no implicit six-month bond-hearing requirement — but expressly reserved whether the Constitution requires periodic bond hearings as detention lengthens. Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 741 (2019) held ICE must detain "when released" from criminal custody even if years have passed.
• The reserved constitutional question almost reached the Supreme Court in 2026 — then vanished. In Genalo v. Black, No. 25-886, certiorari was granted June 15, 2026 on whether § 1226(c) detention becomes "unreasonably prolonged" such that due process requires a bond hearing with the burden on the government by clear and convincing evidence (the Second Circuit had said yes after 7 and 21 months). On September 11, 2026, the parties stipulated to dismissal under Rule 46 after New York granted one respondent a full pardon, mooting the case; the government has said it will seek another vehicle this Term. The circuit split therefore stands unresolved: the Second and Ninth Circuits require prolonged-detention bond hearings; others do not. The briefs remain on LawDiver: petition, brief in opposition, reply, petitioner's merits brief, and respondents' merits brief.
• Post-order detention — 8 U.S.C. § 1231: a 90-day removal period of mandatory detention, after which Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) imposes a presumptive six-month reasonableness limit when removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future — extended to inadmissible aliens in Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005).

People in ICE custody can be located through the official ICE Online Detainee Locator using an A-number and country of birth, or a name and birthdate.

Ways to stay: every form of relief and protection

If removal proceedings have started (or are threatened), these are the statutory ways to remain — from the strongest to the most discretionary:

1. Asylum — INA § 208, 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Requires persecution (or a well-founded fear of it) on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Bars: the one-year filing deadline, aggravated felony conviction, persecution of others, certain terrorism and security grounds, and firm resettlement. An asylee can adjust to LPR status after one year — a path now before the Supreme Court in Wassily v. Blanche, No. 25-842 (whether people whose asylum was later terminated can still adjust).
2. Withholding of removal — INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). No one-year deadline, available in reinstatement cases after a reasonable-fear screening, but the standard is higher (more likely than not) and it confers no status, no path to a green card, and no right to travel.
3. Protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) — implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). Requires a probability greater than 50% of torture by or with the acquiescence of the government. No persecution nexus needed; the criminal bars are narrower than asylum's. This is the protection that shielded Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
4. Cancellation of removal for permanent residents — INA § 240A(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a): five years as an LPR, seven years continuous residence, no aggravated felony. The stop-time rule and Pereira/Niz-Chavez NTA defects interact with the seven-year clock — Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. 222 (2020) held a criminal offense that renders a person inadmissible can stop the clock even without a removal order on that offense.
5. Cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents (42B) — § 240A(b): ten years physical presence, good moral character, and exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a U.S.-citizen or LPR spouse, parent, or child. Numerically capped at 4,000 grants per year. Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 703 (2021) clarified how courts review mixed decisions (adverse credibility plus denial of 42B) — a favorable presumption applies to the credibility determination when the IJ does not explicitly find the applicant incredible.
6. VAWA self-petition and cancellation — 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) for abused spouses and children of citizens and LPRs; also a self-petition path to a green card outside removal proceedings.
7. U visa — INA § 101(a)(15)(U), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U) for victims of qualifying crimes who help law enforcement; 10,000 per year, long backlog, with deferred-action work permits while pending. T visa for trafficking victims: § 101(a)(15)(T), 5,000 per year.
8. Registry — INA § 249, 8 U.S.C. § 1259: continuous residence since before January 1, 1972 (the date has not moved in decades) plus good moral character. A rarely used but still-valid path for very long-term residents.
9. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — INA § 244, 8 U.S.C. § 1254a: country-based humanitarian protection with work authorization. After Mullin v. Doe, designations and terminations are effectively unreviewable (see TPS section).
10. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — discretionary forbearance with two-year renewable work authorization (see DACA section).
11. Parole and humanitarian programs — INA § 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). The CHNV parole programs (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela) have been terminated, and litigation over the terminations reached the Supreme Court's shadow docket in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (2025), where the Court stayed a nationwide injunction. Advance Parole for DACA recipients remains available for urgent travel.
12. § 212(h), § 212(i), § 212(c), and NACARA waivers — the classic waiver toolkit for criminal and fraud grounds; § 212(c) survives in limited form for pre-2001 plea situations under INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), which also held AEDPA/IIRIRA's elimination of habeas review did not apply retroactively to plea-based convictions.

A separate question people search constantly: can a state arrest and deport people under state law? Texas SB4 (2023) created a state crime of unlawful reentry and let state judges order "return" to a foreign country. The Supreme Court declined to block it briefly in United States v. Texas (2023–24 shadow docket), but the Fifth Circuit stayed enforcement pending appeal and the underlying preemption fight continues; the Court's Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) holding that removal is exclusively federal remains the controlling framework. In 2025 the Court reinforced state-level limits from another direction: Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco (2025) addressed government standing to challenge sanctuary-city policies in the immigration context.

Every immigration status, explained in one table

The controlling text for nonimmigrant categories is INA § 101(a)(15), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15); for immigrant preference categories, INA § 203, 8 U.S.C. § 1153.

Asylum in 2026: how, where, and when to apply

If you are already inside the United States

• Form: I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (covers asylum, withholding, and CAT in one form).
• Where: Affirmative asylum applications go to the USCIS Asylum Division; defensive applications are filed with the immigration court (EOIR) during removal proceedings.
• When: The one-year deadline runs from your last entry (8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)). Late filing is excused only by changed circumstances or extraordinary circumstances. There is no filing fee for asylum.
• Current processing reality: USCIS's Last In, First Out scheduling remains in effect; defensive cases are heard on the EOIR docket, which runs multi-year waits in most courts. Check EOIR case status with the A-number.
• Work authorization: You may file I-765 based on a pending asylum application 150 days after filing, with the EAD issued if still pending at 180 days (the asylum EAD clock; 8 C.F.R. § 208.7).

At the southern border

• CBP One is gone. The app that scheduled port-of-entry appointments was terminated in January 2025.
• Proclamation 10888 (January 20, 2025, "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion") suspends entry and asylum applications for people crossing between ports of entry and undocumented arrivals at ports. The district court vacated it in July 2025 (RAICES v. Mullin); the D.C. Circuit affirmed on April 24, 2026 that the Proclamation cannot supplant the INA's asylum and removal framework; the August 2025 partial stay remains operative (asylum barred; withholding and CAT screening must be provided); rehearing en banc was denied July 23, 2026; the mandate is stayed pending certiorari. The government's petition is now before the Supreme Court as Mullin v. RAICES, No. 26-239 (filed August 24, 2026).
• *Metering is lawful after Mullin v. Al Otro Lado.* Officials may turn away asylum seekers at the line without violating §§ 1158(a)(1) or 1225(a)(1). The Ninth Circuit decisions that had held otherwise — Al Otro Lado v. McAleenan (9th Cir.) and Al Otro Lado v. Noem (9th Cir. 2025) — were reversed on June 25, 2026. The merits briefs are on LawDiver: petitioner's, respondents', and petition.
• What still applies: anyone who does reach U.S. territory and expresses a fear must receive a credible-fear screening (asylum bar notwithstanding, withholding/CAT screening continues under the RAICES stay structure), and expedited-removal limits from Thuraissigiam apply.
• Third-country processing: agreements to send asylum seekers to other countries for processing have been proposed and litigated; as of September 2026, no large-scale third-country removal program has survived review, but Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (2025) shows the Court's willingness to stay nationwide injunctions against the government's parole-termination and related policies.

The substantive asylum standard

The applicant must show persecution or a well-founded fear on a protected ground. Key Supreme Court and BIA-era doctrinal anchors still in force: particular-social-group claims require immutability and social distinction (Matter of M-E-V-G- and Matter of W-G-R- (BIA 2014)); nexus requires that a protected ground be "at least one central reason" (8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). Credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence, and Garland v. Ming Dai (2021) requires the favorable-presumption analysis when the IJ makes no explicit adverse credibility finding. Garland v. Gonzalez, 595 U.S. 531 (2022) confirms courts must defer to the agency's reasonable reading of the INA (the Chevron-era framework; since Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) overruled Chevron, courts now exercise independent judgment while still respecting Skidmore-weight agency reasoning — a shift that reshapes every immigration-regulation case going forward).

Green cards in 2026: how, where, and when to apply for permanent residence

The two processing paths

• Consular processing (applicants outside the U.S.): an approved petition goes to the National Visa Center, then to a U.S. embassy or consulate; the applicant files DS-260 and interviews abroad. Current per-country processing norms and required documents are in the State Department's Visa Bulletin and reciprocity tables.
• Adjustment of status (applicants inside the U.S.): Form I-485 filed with USCIS. Eligibility to adjust generally requires having been "inspected and admitted or paroled" (8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)); EWI entrants must usually leave and consular-process (triggering the 3/10-year bars and an I-601A provisional waiver where a citizen/LPR spouse or parent would suffer extreme hardship), and TPS entrants face the Sanchez v. Mayorkas limitation.

Family-based categories

The petition is Form I-130 for relatives and I-129F for fiancé(e)s:

• Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (spouse, unmarried child under 21, parent if the petitioner is 21+): no numerical cap, no backlog — processing is months, driven by petition and interview scheduling (INA § 201(b)).
• Family preference (F) — capped at 226,000/year (§ 201(c), 7% per-country floor):
• F1: unmarried sons/daughters (21+) of citizens — backlog ~8–9 years (longer for Mexico and the Philippines).
• F2A: spouses and minor children of LPRs — recently near-current for most countries but subject to retrogression; F2B: unmarried adult children of LPRs — ~8+ years.
• F3: married sons/daughters of citizens — ~14+ years (20+ for Mexico/Philippines).
• F4: siblings of citizens — ~16+ years (20+ for Mexico/Philippines/India).
• Your priority date (the I-130 filing date) must be earlier than the cut-off in the current Visa Bulletin — either Chart A (Final Action Dates) or Chart B (Dates for Filing, when USCIS announces it is open). This is why "how long does a green card take" has no single answer: immediate relatives wait months; F4 Mexico waitlists run decades.
• Conditional residence: spouses married less than two years at grant get a two-year conditional green card and must file I-751 (or I-829 for EB-5 investors) to remove conditions.

Employment-based categories

Capped at 140,000/year (§ 201(d)), with 7% per-country limits that drive the decades-long India and China backlogs:

• EB-1 (extraordinary ability, outstanding professors/researchers, multinational managers): often current for most countries; no labor certification; extraordinary-ability applicants can self-petition (I-140).
• EB-2 (advanced degree or exceptional ability): requires PERM labor certification unless a National Interest Waiver is granted (self-petition possible).
• EB-3 (professionals, skilled workers, other workers): PERM required.
• PERM process: prevailing wage determination (ETA Form 9141), recruitment, then ETA Form 9089. PERM processing in 2026 runs roughly 12–16 months for unaudited cases; the wage source is the OFLC wage library.
• EB-4 (special immigrants, including religious workers) and EB-5 (investors; $800,000 in targeted employment areas or $1.05M otherwise, with regional-center reauthorization through 2027 under the 2022 RIA): I-526E / I-829.
• After I-140 approval, the priority date from the PERM or I-140 governs the Visa Bulletin wait; H-1B extensions beyond year six are available in one-year increments when the I-140 is approved but the date is not current (AC21 § 106(a)).

Humanitarian and other adjustments

• Asylee/refugee adjustment: I-485 one year after grant, under § 1159 — see Wassily below for the terminated-asylum question.
• VAWA self-petitioners: I-360, can adjust without the abuser's cooperation.
• Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: I-360 after a state juvenile-court predicate finding; adjustment quota-limited.
• Cuban Adjustment Act (Pub. L. 89-732) — one year plus one day physical presence.
• NACARA, HRIFA, and registry (§ 1259) — narrow, older programs still alive for qualifying populations.
• Everywhere, check current processing times at USCIS processing times and field-office wait times before assuming a date.

H-1B visas in 2026: the weighted lottery, the blocked $100,000 fee, and your timeline

The cap and the registration

• 65,000 regular cap + 20,000 U.S. master's cap, with cap-exempt petitions for higher-education institutions, related nonprofits, and government research organizations (8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)).
• The lottery is now wage-weighted. The DHS final rule effective February 27, 2026 (90 Fed. Reg. 63771) replaced the purely random selection with a system that gives more entries to higher-wage registrations (four entries at Level IV prevailing wage, three at Level III, two at Level II, one at Level I). Selection rates shift accordingly; the H-1B registration tool still runs in March for an October 1 start.
• Timeline for FY 2027 (October 1, 2026 start): registrations in March 2026 → selections late March → petitions filed April 1–June 30, 2026 → start October 1, 2026. Premium processing (I-907, 15 business days for new petitions) remains available.

The $100,000 fee: what happened, and where it stands

• September 19, 2025: Presidential Proclamation 10973 ("Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers") required a $100,000 payment accompanying new H-1B petitions filed after September 21, 2025.
• December 12, 2025: California and other states sued in the District of Massachusetts (State of California v. Mullin, No. 1:25-cv-13829).
• June 8, 2026: the district court granted summary judgment to the states (California v. Mullin), declaring the implementing policy unlawful and vacating it in its entirety under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) — the fee functioned as an unauthorized tax and the implementation violated the APA.
• July 24, 2026: the First Circuit denied the government's motion to stay the vacatur pending appeal (State of California v. Mullin, No. 26-1699). USCIS stopped collecting the fee and confirmed it "will comply with the court's order."
• September 18, 2026: a new proclamation extended the fee policy through September 21, 2027 — but the extension rides on the same vacated implementation, and plaintiffs are positioned to challenge any attempt to collect under it.
• Practical answer for employers and workers today: do not budget the $100,000 payment for petitions filed now; the regular fee schedule (base filing, ACWIA, fraud prevention, asylum program fee, optional premium processing) still applies. Monitor the First Circuit appeal — if the government wins, DHS has said it will collect again. The official status page is the USCIS H-1B alert.
• A separate proposed USCIS fee of $103,265 is in notice-and-comment rulemaking, not in effect.

H-1B essentials beyond the fee

• Specialty occupation: the position must require a bachelor's or higher in a specific specialty, and the beneficiary must have the degree or equivalent (§ 1184(i)).
• LCA: the employer files ETA-9035 with the Department of Labor certifying the prevailing wage for the area of employment (20 C.F.R. § 655.730).
• Portability: an H-1B worker can start with a new employer upon filing of a non-frivolous I-129 (AC21 § 105).
• Dual intent: H-1B holders may pursue a green card without jeopardizing the visa.
• Six-year limit, extendable in year-plus increments with a pending PERM (365+ days) or approved I-140 with an unavailable priority date.
• The government's broader 2025–26 H-1B rulemaking also tightened site-visit compliance and third-party placement; employers should check the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 2, Part B.

TPS after Mullin v. Doe: terminations by country, and what is left

The decision

Mullin v. Doe (consolidated with Trump v. Miot, No. 25-1084) held:

1. 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) — "no judicial review of any determination … with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of designation, of a foreign state" — bars review of non-constitutional claims, including APA procedural and consultation challenges. "Determination" covers the Secretary's underlying reasoning and subsidiary decisions, not just the final notice.
2. The Haitian respondents' equal-protection claim (that Haiti's TPS was terminated because of race) was unlikely to succeed, because a race-neutral explanation exists: the administration opposes TPS as historically implemented and has terminated every designation coming up for renewal.
3. The Court left open whether constitutional claims are categorically unreviewable — but made clear that a colorable constitutional claim is the only surviving vehicle, and it must clear plausibility hurdles.

Alito, J., announced the judgment; Roberts, C.J., Thomas, and Kavanaugh joined in full; Gorsuch and Barrett joined except Part III-A; Thomas concurred; Kagan dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. Read the majority: Mullin v. Doe (2026). The merits briefs: petitioners', Doe respondents', Miot respondents', and petitioners' reply.

What it means on the ground

• Terminations now largely stand. Haiti and Syria terminations took effect; terminations announced for Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan, Burma, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Nepal, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Cameroon, and Ukraine proceeded or are proceeding on their published wind-down dates. EADs remain valid only through the end of each designation/extension period or the termination's effective date, whichever the Federal Register notice says.
• Where to check your country: the USCIS TPS page and each country's Federal Register termination notice. The notice controls the EAD expiry — not the court docket.
• Re-registration and renewal: if your country still has a live designation, follow the FR notice windows to file I-821 and I-765. Missing the window can end both status and work authorization.
• Litigation that survives: equal-protection and other constitutional claims (harder now, but not categorically barred), plus claims unrelated to the § 1254a(b)(5)(A) determination — e.g., EAD processing delays, revocation procedures, or state benefits disputes.

DACA in 2026: renewals yes, first-time applications no

• The posture: the Fifth Circuit held DACA unlawful in 2024 (Texas v. United States), but its stay-of-vacatur keeps the program running for current recipients. USCIS processes renewals (I-821D, every two years, filed in the 150–120-day window before expiry) and continues to accept but not approve initial requests.
• Advance Parole (I-131) remains available for urgent, humanitarian, educational, or employment travel — and parole on return counts as "inspected and paroled" for later adjustment (a critical interaction with Sanchez v. Mayorkas and § 1255).
• Employment authorization continues via I-765 category (c)(33); renewals should be filed early because adjudication times run several months.
• Watch item: any further Supreme Court action on the Texas litigation, and the perennial legislative proposals (Dream Act variants). No statute has passed; DACA remains executive-branch policy sustained by a stay.

The Supreme Court's 2025–26 immigration term, decided

SCOTUS 2026–27 Term: the pending cases

• **Mullin v. RAICES, No. 26-239** (cert. petition filed August 24, 2026; response due September 23, 2026). Whether Proclamation 10888's asylum suspension is lawful under § 1182(f) and § 1225(b); whether § 1252(f)(1) bars the class-wide injunction; and whether the class definition satisfies Article III and Rule 23. The D.C. Circuit's April 24, 2026 decision held the Proclamation cannot replace the INA's framework; the August 2025 partial stay (withholding/CAT screening preserved) remains operative. Petition on LawDiver.
• **Wassily v. Blanche, No. 25-842 (cert. granted June 29, 2026; argument November 30, 2026**). Whether noncitizens who were granted asylum but whose asylum was later terminated can still adjust to LPR status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). The Fifth Circuit says yes; the Second and Fourth Circuits say categorically no. Party briefs on LawDiver: petition, brief in opposition, reply, petitioners' merits brief.
• **Genalo v. Black, No. 25-886 — dismissed September 11, 2026* (Rule 46 stipulation after a gubernatorial pardon mooted the remaining respondent's case). The prolonged-mandatory-detention question (Jennings*'s reserved constitutional issue) is unresolved, and the Solicitor General has stated the government will seek another vehicle this Term. Briefs preserved: petition and merits briefs.
• Cert petitions to watch: the government's follow-ups on expedited-removal scope after EO 14167; AEA designation standards; and nationwide-injunction power (Trump v. CASA framework applied to immigration orders).

Circuit splits to watch

1. Prolonged § 1226(c) detention. Second Circuit (Genalo below; bond hearing after ~6 months with clear-and-convincing burden) and Ninth Circuit (six-month Casas-Castaneda/Rodriguez line) require hearings; the Fifth and Eleventh do not. Post-Genalo-dismissal, the split persists into 2027.
2. Asylum adjustment after termination. Fifth Circuit (eligible) vs. Second and Fourth Circuits (categorically ineligible) — now before SCOTUS in Wassily v. Blanche. See also Cordero-Garcia v. Garland (9th Cir. 2024) on § 1159(b) mechanics.
3. Metering/"arrival." Resolved by Mullin v. Al Otro Lado — but the decision's reach into § 1225(b)(1) expedited-removal geography (how far inland "at the border" runs under EO 14167) is the next fight. Compare Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan (9th Cir. 2019) (MPP unlawful, pre-reversal reasoning) with the 2026 holding.
4. Credible-fear standards after the 2025 rule. The May 2025 interim final rule tightened screening standards; Grace v. Whitaker (D.D.C. 2018, aff'd D.C. Cir. 2020) vacatur of Matter of A-B-/A-C-M- elements still structures particular-social-group analysis in some circuits.
5. State immigration enforcement. Fifth Circuit (SB4 stayed) vs. state "document-check" and transportation statutes elsewhere; Arizona v. United States (2012) preemption framework vs. the 2025–26 state-law wave. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011) (savings-clause licensing laws survive) remains the counterweight.
6. Nationwide injunctions in immigration. After Trump v. CASA (2025) limited class-wide relief, the RAICES class structure and its cert petition test what survives.
7. Hansen-type smuggling liability. Whether "encouraging or inducing" for private benefit (§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)) survives vagueness review after United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 498 (2023) — applied unevenly to mixed-status families and NGOs.

The constitutional and structural foundations

• Plenary power and its limits. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (facially legitimate and bona fide reason standard for visa exclusions); Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) (Congress's broad immigration classifications); Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (entry fiction for exclusion at the border); Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015) (no fundamental right of a citizen to a visaed spouse's entry; consular nonreviewability); Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018) (§ 1182(f) suspension power upheld for the 2017 travel ban — the legal engine behind Proclamations 10888 and the H-1B fee's proclamation vehicle).
• Due process inside the border. Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) (indefinite detention raises serious constitutional questions; six-month presumption); Thuraissigiam (2020) (habeas limited at the threshold); Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (the suspension-clause baseline the majority in Thuraissigiam distinguished).
• Equal protection and citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (birthright citizenship); Trump v. Barbara (2026) (confirming it against EO 14160); Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U.S. 47 (2017) (gendered physical-presence rules for transmitting citizenship at birth violate equal protection); United States v. Vaello Madero, 596 U.S. 159 (2022) (SSI exclusion for Puerto Rico residents — the territorial-classification baseline invoked in immigrant-benefits fights).
• Preemption and the states. Arizona v. United States (2012); Whiting (2011); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (undocumented children's right to public K–12 education); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) (federal classifications for immigrant benefits get rational-basis review).
• *Agency deference, post-Loper Bright. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) overruled Chevron*; Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, 603 U.S. 799 (2024) extended APA challenge windows (limitations run from injury, not rulemaking); Garland v. Cargill, Inc., 602 U.S. 411 (2024) shows the textualist method now controlling agency interpretations — BIA and DHS regulations will be read against the INA's text without deference. Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002) (no backpay for undocumented workers under the NLRA) remains the employment-law anchor.
• DACA's administrative-law arc. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 590 U.S. 1 (2020) (rescission arbitrary and capricious — the decision that kept DACA alive) → Texas litigation (unlawful but stayed) → renewals-only status in 2026.

How removal proceedings actually work (step by step)

1. Arrest or service of the NTA. ICE issues the Notice to Appear (8 C.F.R. § 1003.14); Pereira and Niz-Chavez defects are the first thing competent counsel checks.
2. Master calendar hearing. Pleas to the charges; designation of relief; deadlines.
3. Individual hearing. Testimony and evidence on removability and every application (asylum/withholding/CAT, cancellation, adjustment, waivers).
4. BIA appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38; 30 days from an oral decision, 30 days from service of a written one. Single-judge affirmances without opinion are common; en banc rehearing rare.
5. Circuit court petition for review. 30 days from the final BIA order (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)); criminal-ground removals get a limited jurisdictional carve-out for constitutional and legal questions only (§ 1252(a)(2)(C)).
6. Certiorari. 90 days from the circuit judgment.

EOIR case status and hearing dates: Automated Case Information System (A-number). Court backlog and completion data: EOIR FOIA library.

Frequently asked questions

Can I be deported if I am a lawful permanent resident?

Yes. LPRs are removable under the deportability grounds in 8 U.S.C. § 1227 — most commonly crimes (aggravated felony, two CIMTs, any controlled-substance offense except a single small-marijuana-possession offense) and status violations. LPRs keep the right to a full hearing before an immigration judge and may apply for § 240A(a) cancellation (five years LPR status, seven years residence, no aggravated felony). Returning LPRs can also be treated as "arriving aliens" after certain trips or offenses (§ 101(a)(13)(C)).

What is the difference between asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection?

Asylum (§ 1158) has a lower burden (well-founded fear = reasonable possibility), a one-year deadline, and leads to a green card. Withholding (§ 1231(b)(3)) requires a greater-than-50% likelihood, has no deadline, but is removal-only protection with no status. CAT (8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)) requires a >50% probability of torture with government acquiescence, regardless of why — and no persecution nexus. All three can be applied for on the same I-589.

If my TPS country is terminated, when does my work permit expire?

Your EAD stays valid through the date stated in the Federal Register termination notice for your country — usually after a wind-down period. After Mullin v. Doe (2026), courts will not second-guess the termination itself on non-constitutional grounds. Check the USCIS TPS page and the Federal Register notices for your country's specific end date, and ask counsel about fallback options (asylum, cancellation, parole, family petitions) before the EAD lapses.

Is the $100,000 H-1B fee in effect right now?

No. The District of Massachusetts vacated the implementing policy on June 8, 2026 (California v. Mullin), and the First Circuit denied a stay on July 24, 2026, so USCIS is not collecting the payment while the appeal proceeds — even though a September 18, 2026 proclamation extended the underlying policy through September 21, 2027. Standard H-1B fees still apply. Watch the USCIS H-1B alert for any change.

How does the new weighted H-1B lottery work?

For registrations beginning with the FY 2027 cycle, each beneficiary's wage level determines entries: Level IV prevailing wage gets four entries, Level III three, Level II two, Level I one — so higher-paid positions have proportionally higher selection odds. The rule (90 Fed. Reg. 63771) took effect February 27, 2026. The cap structure (65,000 + 20,000 master's) is unchanged.

Can I renew DACA, and can I travel?

Renewals are being processed — file I-821D in the 150-to-120-day window before expiration. Travel requires Advance Parole (I-131) approved before departure for urgent humanitarian, educational, or employment purposes; departing without parole ends DACA. First-time applications are accepted but not approved under the Texas litigation.

What happens if ICE stops me?

You may remain silent (say so explicitly), you may refuse to sign anything without a lawyer, and you may ask to speak to an attorney — the government does not provide one in immigration court. Do not open the door to a home raid without a judicial warrant signed by a judge (an administrative I-200/I-205 is not a judicial warrant); ask to see it through the door or window. Record the encounter if safe. Find detained family members via the ICE detainee locator. Know-your-rights materials: ACLU and immigrant legal-resource hotlines.

Am I subject to expedited removal?

Possibly. Arriving aliens without valid documents are, and after EO 14167 the administration applies expedited removal to interior apprehensions of people who cannot establish continuous presence for the statutory period (two years as directed). Expedited removal means no immigration judge and limited habeas review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) and Thuraissigiam (2020) — but anyone expressing a fear of return must get a credible-fear screening.

Does Texas SB4 let state police deport me?

No — not currently. The Fifth Circuit stayed enforcement while the preemption appeal proceeds, and Arizona v. United States (2012) holds that removal decisions belong exclusively to the federal government. Similar state statutes (transportation, document-check, and data-sharing laws) face active litigation; check the current status before relying on any summary.

How long will my green card application take?

Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens: months (petition adjudication plus interview scheduling). Family preference and employment categories: your priority date must become current in the Visa Bulletin, which for F3/F4 and EB-2/EB-3 India and China means years to decades. Adjustment applicants should track USCIS processing times by form and field office; consular applicants track the NVC stage and post-specific wait times.

Can my U.S.-citizen child petition for me?

Yes — at age 21, a U.S.-citizen child can file I-130 as an "immediate relative" petition for a parent (no quota). The parent must still be admissible or qualify for a waiver, and if the parent entered without inspection, consular processing plus an I-601A waiver (or another lawful path, such as § 245(k)-style forgiveness where available) is typically required. Children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents are citizens after Trump v. Barbara (2026).

What is a "credible fear interview" and what happens if I fail?

It is the threshold screening for anyone in expedited removal who expresses a fear of return: an asylum officer decides whether there is a significant possibility of establishing asylum eligibility (or, under current screening rules, the higher thresholds for withholding/CAT). A negative finding can be reviewed by an immigration judge on request (8 C.F.R. § 208.30(g)). Passing credible fear moves you into standard removal proceedings where you can present the full asylum/withholding/CAT case.

Where do I file forms, and how do I track them?

Form addresses and current editions are on each form's USCIS page (Forms library); filing locations depend on form and category (direct-mail lockbox vs. online filing). Track with the receipt number at myUSCIS case status. EOIR cases: ACIS. Never file an expired form edition — USCIS rejects them.

Can the government take away my citizenship?

Only through denaturalization in federal court (8 U.S.C. § 1451(e)) for procurement by illegal act or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, or for refusal to testify before Congress within ten years in certain cases — a demanding civil standard, plus criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 1425. The 2025–26 "Denaturalization Section" initiative has increased filings but no legal standard changed.

Key deadlines at a glance

Where to verify everything in this article

• Statutes: the INA as codified in Title 8 on LawDiver, and the USCIS policy pages.
• Regulations: 8 C.F.R. (DHS) and 20 C.F.R. (DOL).
• Agency policy: the USCIS Policy Manual — the binding internal guidance adjudicators follow.
• EOIR: EOIR home (immigration court practice materials and BIA precedent decisions).
• Visa Bulletin: travel.state.gov, updated monthly.
• Case opinions: every linked /casedisplay page carries the full opinion text, citation graph, and AI analysis on LawDiver; every /litigant-filing page carries the ingested PDF of the party brief.

One last thing

Immigration law in 2026 rewards preparation and punishes delay. The one-year asylum clock, the 30-day BIA and circuit-court deadlines, the 150-day EAD clock, the DACA renewal window, and the Visa Bulletin priority dates are all unforgiving. Every holding summarized here links to the primary source — read the opinion before relying on the summary, and get counsel before filing, traveling, or responding to ICE.

This article is part of LawDiver's federal reference library, alongside our constitutional amendment hubs and state-law practice guides.