Weekly Brief
U.S. Immigration Law
Week of September 28 – October 4, 2026 · Full-spectrum coverage
Sources: USCIS newsroom & Policy Manual · USCIS Forms Updates · DOS Visa Bulletin & visa news · DOL/OFLC & FLAG · Federal Register API and GPO full text (DHS, USCIS, DOS, DOL, ETA, EOIR, CBP, ICE) · USCIS AAO non-precedent repository (B2, B5, D8, D9) · BIA precedent & EOIR notices · Supreme Court dockets · ICE/CBP · AILA · Fragomen, BAL, Ogletree, Jackson Lewis, Fisher Phillips, Greenberg Traurig · Cyrus Mehta · ImmigrationProf · National Law Review / JD Supra
Deadline calendar · next 60 days
| Date | Item | Type |
|---|---|---|
| Mon Oct 5 | Comments close today — DHS interim final rule on registration of lawful permanent resident status for children born in the United States to foreign government employees. | Comment |
| Tue Oct 13 | Comments close — E-Verify Program information collection revision. | Comment |
| Wed Oct 14 | Comments close — USCIS information collection, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence (Form I-751). | Comment |
| Fri Oct 16 | FY2027 H.R. 1 fees effective. I-765 initial asylum, parole and TPS EADs to $570; I-821 to $520; I-131 parole to $1,050; annual pending asylum fee to $105. Any benefit request postmarked on or after this date without the proper fee will be rejected. CBP parole, ESTA and EVUS and the ICE $5,300 enforcement fees start the same day. Does not reach I-129, I-140, I-907 or the I-485 base fee. | Fee change |
| ~Sun Oct 18 | EO 14431 § 3(b) thirty-day mark. DOL Wage and Hour must begin reviewing previously filed LCA data for possible INA § 212(n)(2)(G) action. Carried forward. | Agency deadline |
| Mon Oct 19 | Comments close — two USCIS information collections published September 17. | Comment |
| Tue Oct 20 | Joint case management statement due — Global Nurse Force v. Trump, No. 4:25-cv-08454 (N.D. Cal.), the $100,000 H-1B payment case. | Court deadline |
| Wed Oct 21 | Response due — District of Columbia's brief in Genalo v. District of Columbia, No. 26-379 (S. Ct., certiorari before judgment on prolonged § 1226(c) detention and bond hearings). | Court deadline |
| Fri Oct 23 | USCIS Policy Alert PA-2026-15 takes effect — narrowed definition of “day” for filing deadlines. Secondary accounts conflict on whether electronically filed responses lose the weekend-and-holiday rollover entirely; the alert text could not be read. Recalendar every docketed deadline that rolls past this date. Also: petitioners' brief due in DHS v. D.V.D., No. 26-426. | Effective date |
| Mon Oct 26 | Effective — DOL rescission of the Executive Order 11246 implementing regulations. Carried forward. | Effective date |
| Tue Oct 27 | Case management conference — Global Nurse Force v. Trump, N.D. Cal. | Court date |
| Thu Oct 29 | Comments close — ICE information collection, Designation of Attorney in Fact (OMB 1653-0041), 30-day notice. | Comment |
| Mon Nov 2 | Comments close — CBP new collection, CR-TAP. | Comment |
| Mon Nov 9 | Form I-129 edition 02/27/26 rejected if postmarked or e-filed on or after this date; only the 09/09/26 edition survives. Reaches every O-1A, O-2, P-1A and P-1S filing. Carried forward — the USCIS forms-updates page still cannot be fetched to re-verify. | Form edition |
| Tue Nov 10 | Comments close (midnight ET) — DHS NPRM eliminating the discretionary 60-day grace period, RIN 1615-AD22, Docket USCIS-2026-0364. Would delete 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) for E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN and their dependents, and strike the cross-reference to it from 8 CFR 204.5(p)(1)(i). | Comment |
| Fri Nov 13 | Comments close — USCIS information collection for Form I-140, extension without change. Same-date batch covers I-129, I-526/I-526E, I-360 and I-601A. | Comment |
| Mon Nov 16 | Respondents' brief due — DHS v. D.V.D., No. 26-426 (S. Ct.). Also effective: ETA final rule, Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program, data availability. | Court deadline |
| Tue Nov 17 | Comments close — DOS 60-day notice, Form DS-864E, exemption from the immigrant visa affidavit of support. | Comment |
| Fri Nov 27 | Comments close — USCIS information collection, Biographic Information (Registration), Form G-325R, OMB 1615-0166. | Comment |
| Mon Nov 30 | EB-5 fee final rule effective. Applications postmarked on or after this date need the new fees: I-526 $7,615; I-526E initial $7,850, amendments $7,775; I-829 $5,000; new Form I-527 $10,330. Amounts now verified against the regulatory text. | Fee change |
| Tue Dec 1 | Reply brief due by 2:00 p.m. — DHS v. D.V.D., No. 26-426 (S. Ct.). | Court deadline |
| Wed Dec 9 | Oral argument — DHS v. D.V.D., No. 26-426 (S. Ct.). Five days past the sixty-day horizon; listed because the briefing that frames it falls entirely inside it. Question 2 reaches classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). | Court date |
| Fri Dec 11 | EB-4 Certain Religious Workers (SR) authorization expires unless extended again. H.R. 6500, signed September 2, 2026, carried it only this far. Seven days past the horizon; listed because the October bulletin states it. | Visa numbers |
1 · Action Required
Seven itemsFY2027 H.R. 1 fee schedule takes effect October 16 on a postmark-rejection rule — and does not touch I-129, I-140, I-907 or the I-485 base fee
USCIS published the annual inflation adjustment that H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. 119-21) requires it to make to the fees that statute created. The CPI-U rose from 323.048 in July 2025 to 333.918 in July 2026, a 3.36 percent increase, and the statute directs rounding down to the next lowest multiple of $10 — or, for the Annual Asylum Fee alone, down to the nearest dollar. The result is a $10 bump on four line items and nothing at all on the rest.
The verified table. I-589 initial asylum fee $100, unchanged. I-589 Annual Pending Asylum Application Fee $102 → $105. I-765 initial asylum-applicant EAD $560 → $570; the asylum EAD renewal stays at $275 because, in the notice's words, “H.R. 1 does not provide for adjustment.” I-765 initial parole EAD $560 → $570, parole renewal $280 unchanged, re-parole EAD $280 unchanged. I-765 initial TPS EAD $560 → $570, TPS renewal $280 unchanged. I-821 TPS $510 → $520. I-360 SIJ $250, unchanged. I-131 immigration parole $1,020 → $1,050. I-94 $24, unchanged.
The DATES clause is the operative sentence: “Any immigration benefit request postmarked on or after October 16, 2026 without the proper filing fee will be rejected.” Two companion notices published the same day and take effect the same day — FR Doc. 2026-20185 (CBP: the H.R. 1 parole fee $1,050, land-border I-94 $24, ESTA $40.62, EVUS $31.75) and FR Doc. 2026-20186 (ICE: $5,300 both for an alien ordered removed in absentia who is later arrested and for an inadmissible alien apprehended between ports of entry).
FR Doc. 2026-20187 — USCIS H.R. 1 fees, read in full·FR Doc. 2026-20185 — CBP·FR Doc. 2026-20186 — ICE
PA-2026-15 takes effect October 23 and the alert text still cannot be read — two published accounts of it disagree on the point that matters most
Three secondary accounts, three different framings. VisaVerge reports that online filings lose the next-business-day extension entirely, on the theory that an electronic submission is received “when sent,” and that paper filings keep the extension only where the deadline is expressly measured in a number of days. Cyrus Mehta's September 28 update describes only the day-counted rule — the next-business-day extension applies to deadlines stated in days and not to age-based or anniversary-based requirements — and says nothing about a paper/electronic split. AILA frames the alert as an adjustment-of-status matter. Last week's edition recorded the day-counted versus event-triggered distinction. None of these is the alert.
The disagreement lands exactly where it is most expensive. An RFE or NOID response period is a day-counted deadline, so on every reading on the table it keeps the weekend-and-holiday rollover. But if VisaVerge's electronic carve-out is real, an RFE response e-filed on the Monday after a Sunday deadline is late, while the identical response mailed that Monday is timely — and the firm e-files. That is not a distinction anyone should be learning from a denial notice.
USCIS PA-2026-15 (PDF) — 403, not read·VisaVerge summary (summary-sourced)·Cyrus Mehta, Immigration Update, September 28 (summary-sourced)·AILA Doc. — policy alert notice
N.D. Cal. enjoins the $100,000 H-1B entry payment one week after the proclamation extending it — case management statement October 20, conference October 27
A partial preliminary injunction bars USCIS, CBP and State from implementing §§ 1, 2 and 3(a) of Proclamation 10973 as extended by Proclamation 11069 — the instrument this brief reported entering the Federal Register on September 23 with the payment extended to September 21, 2027. The court held that the agencies cannot impose the payment without completing notice-and-comment rulemaking and the Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses. Ogletree reads the order as meaning the payment is not currently required for any H-1B petition, including consular cases. This is the second court to block the payment; the District of Massachusetts vacated the original implementing actions in June and the First Circuit declined to stay that ruling in July. Refund status for employers who already paid is unresolved on the public record, and the separate NPRM proposing a $103,265 fee on cap-subject petitions is a different instrument, untouched by this order and still in rulemaking.
CourtListener docket — No. 4:25-cv-08454 (N.D. Cal.)·Ogletree, October 2 (summary-sourced)·JURIST, October 1 (summary-sourced)
DHS v. D.V.D. set for argument December 9 — and Question 2 puts classwide APA vacatur itself on the table
The September 29 order stayed the District of Massachusetts's February 25 order and judgment in No. 1:25-cv-10676, treated the stay application as a petition for certiorari, and granted it. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson would have denied the stay. On October 1 the Clerk set the schedule: petitioners' brief October 23, respondents' brief November 16, reply received by 2:00 p.m. December 1, and the case SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 9, 2026. The stay terminates on the sending down of the Court's judgment, so third-country removals may proceed in the meantime.
The four questions as ordered: whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents' claims; whether it had authority to enter classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); whether the Government's third-country removal Guidance is unlawful under § 1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and “such other questions as the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case.” Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance is counsel of record for respondents, with NWIRP on the brief.
Supreme Court docket, No. 26-426 — read in full·Stay application, No. 26A406
Form I-129 edition 02/27/26 stops being accepted November 9 — every O-1A, O-2, P-1A and P-1S filing
Not new, and repeated deliberately. It is the single most mechanical filing risk in this practice for the next two months, the agency page that states it cannot be fetched from this environment, and a rejected I-129 does not just cost the fee — it costs the receipt date, which on an extension matters more than the fee ever will.
USCIS Forms Updates — 403, not read; carried forward·Form I-129 page — 403, not read
Comments on the 60-day grace period NPRM close November 10 — O-1 is named in the rule text, and the proposal also strikes the compelling-circumstances cross-reference
The scope question raised in last week's edition is now answered from the rule itself rather than from a firm alert. DHS writes that “an alien's lawful status in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, or TN nonimmigrant classification is directly connected to and contingent upon the alien conducting certain employment activities or otherwise providing services in the United States that is generally tied to a petitioning employer.” The proposal removes 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) outright for those classifications and their dependents, restoring what DHS calls its “previous and long-standing policy.” P classifications are not in the list.
The sleeper is in a footnote: “DHS also proposes a technical revision to remove a cross-reference to 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) from 8 CFR 204.5(p)(1)(i)” — the compelling-circumstances employment authorization provision for beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions. DHS also discloses how it sized the affected population, counting I-539 change-of-status filings to a non-employment-based status, employment-based I-485s, and compelling-circumstances I-765s filed by aliens in the listed classifications. The preamble concedes that the AC21 rule which created the grace period “heavily emphasized the benefit to certain high-skilled immigrants and their U.S. employers,” 81 FR 82398, 82436, and says ten years of administering it changed the Department's mind. Note that this is 8 CFR part 214 and part 204 together: the rule is framed as a nonimmigrant housekeeping measure but it touches the immigrant side.
FR Doc. 2026-18631 — read in full via GPO·GPO full text, 91 FR 57807
EOIR's FY2027 OBBBA fee amounts took effect October 1 — and the circulating appeal and motion figures are not in the notice
The notice details the FY2027 OBBBA inflation adjustments for four DHS forms when filed with EOIR, at a CPI-U adjustment of 3.4 percent. Form I-485: $1,540 → $1,590. Form I-589 initial application: $100, unchanged. Form I-589 Annual Asylum Fee: $102 → $105. Form I-601: $1,070 → $1,100. Form I-821: $510 → $520. The underlying regulatory amendments were made by final rule at 91 FR 54211 (August 21, 2026); this notice exists, in its own words, “[i]n order to provide further clarity.”
Two cautions the notice states expressly. First, it “does not change any fees for these DHS forms collected pursuant to section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act” — those amounts stay as published in DHS's G-1055 fee schedule, dated September 9, 2026 — and “[t]he amounts displayed on EOIR's Payment Portal and website are the combined total of the section 286(m) and OBBBA fees.” Second, the new amounts are required for any relevant filing with the immigration courts or the Board filed on or after October 1, and “EOIR will continue to reject any filings that are not accompanied by a proper filing fee or request for an applicable fee waiver.” Separately: the figures circulating in practitioner summaries for EOIR appeal fees ($1,060), motions to reopen and reconsider ($1,095) and cancellation applications ($730 to $1,690) do not appear in this notice and were not verified here.
FR Doc. 2026-19841 — read in full via GPO·GPO full text, 91 FR 61447·EOIR, Types of Appeals, Motions, and Required Fees
2 · Notable
Eight itemsSupreme Court takes up whether an interior arrest after entry without inspection means no bond hearing at all
The petitioner is Philip L. Rhoney, Acting Director of ICE's Buffalo Field Office; the respondent is represented by Michael K.T. Tan of the ACLU and by NWIRP. The petition was filed July 23, the Government's reply came September 4, the case was distributed for the September 28 conference, and the Court granted on October 1. The Court simultaneously moved the case out of paper-only filing into its electronic system under Rule 34.6, which is the housekeeping signal that briefing and argument are coming.
Per SCOTUSblog and JURIST — the question presented was not read from a court document and is reported here as a summary — the issue is whether a noncitizen who entered without inspection and was arrested later in the interior is an “applicant for admission” held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), with no entitlement to a bond hearing, or is detained under § 1226(a), which permits one. The Second Circuit held § 1226(a). SCOTUSblog places argument in early 2027; the docket shows no date. The caption is also reported as Barbosa da Cunha v. DHS in some coverage — the docket controls, and it reads as above.
This is now the second detention vehicle on the docket at once. Genalo v. District of Columbia, No. 26-379, certiorari before judgment on prolonged § 1226(c) detention and bond hearings, remains pending with the District's response due October 21. Different statutory hook, same practical question for a detained client.
Supreme Court docket, No. 26-104 — read in full·SCOTUSblog, October 2026 (summary-sourced)·JURIST (summary-sourced)
EB-5 fee final rule: the per-form amounts, now read off the regulatory text rather than a blog
Last week's edition carried the announcement with fee figures attributed to practitioner coverage. They are now confirmed against the amendments to 8 CFR 106.2, which matters because the preamble's own summary table published as an omitted graphic and is not recoverable from the text. New 8 CFR 106.2(d): Form I-526 (standalone investor) $7,615; Form I-526E initial filing $7,850; Form I-526E amendments $7,775; each I-526 and initial I-526E “requires an additional USCIS EB-5 Technology Fee of $75” which is included in those amounts — down from the $95 proposed. Form I-527, the new amendment vehicle for legacy I-526 petitions whose regional center was terminated or whose NCE or JCE was debarred, $10,330. Form I-829 $5,000. The INA § 203(b)(5)(E) petition fee is $1,100, payable in addition to any other fee.
Integrity Fund fees rise 10 percent, DHS having moved the inflation window from 2022–2024 in the proposal to 2022–2025 in the final rule: I-526E Integrity Fund fee $1,000 → $1,100, regional center fee $10,000 → $11,000, and the higher-tier regional center fee $20,000 → $22,000. DHS also revised its receipt forecast upward from 11,262 to 16,604 filings a year using FY2026/2027 Volume Projection Committee estimates, puts the weighted-average form-fee increase at 70.7 percent, or about $2,945.90, and allocated regional center termination and reaffirmation costs only to initial I-956 and I-956F filings rather than to I-956 amendments, in response to comments. Applications postmarked on or after November 30 must carry the new fees.
FR Doc. 2026-20016·GPO full text, 91 FR 61941 — amendatory text read in full
DHS waives New Mexico water law for El Paso Sector barrier construction; a Texas court reportedly froze Big Bend the same day
Secretary Mullin determined under IIRIRA § 102 that it is necessary to waive certain federal and New Mexico legal requirements, water law among them, to expedite barrier and road construction in the Border Patrol El Paso Sector — described by monument: from Border Monument 71 east to 53, north to 40, then east to 1.
Unverified, and flagged as a lead rather than reported as fact: Latin Times reported on October 2 that Judge Kathleen Cardone (W.D. Tex., El Paso) enjoined barrier construction across five Big Bend project areas and set aside DHS waivers of 28 environmental and historic-preservation statutes. No court document was located, the caption and docket number are unknown, and CourtListener was rate-limited for the rest of this run. If that order exists it is the first judicial limit on the § 102 waiver power this year and worth confirming before it is relied on for anything.
FR Doc. 2026-20233·Latin Times, October 2 (single source, unconfirmed)
Visa bond program page updated: fifty countries, B-1/B-2 only, and filing for asylum is a listed breach
Fifty countries are listed. Bonds of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 are set by the consular officer at interview and paid through Pay.gov, and they attach to B-1/B-2 applicants only. Bond holders must enter and depart through commercial air ports of entry. The listed breach conditions include overstay, untimely filing of a change of status, violating the conditions of the visa, and filing for asylum or other humanitarian protection.
Matter of Ho as the answer to the retrogression trap — abeyance rather than denial when the number disappears
The argument: the October bulletin's Dates for Filing chart opens I-485 filing for EB-4 applicants including SIJ beneficiaries, and where a respondent in removal proceedings is otherwise eligible to adjust and the only obstacle is a visa number that has since become unavailable, Matter of Ho supports holding the case in abeyance rather than denying the application. The protective value is for filers whose numbers retrogress after filing.
The reasoning transfers directly, and this month it has somewhere to go. EB-2 Rest of World retrogressed out of Current to a January 1, 2025 final action date while the filing chart sits at March 15, 2026 — which is to say the October bulletin invites a very large cohort of NIW beneficiaries to file against a date their final action date cannot yet reach. For the subset of those who are in proceedings, this is the posture to be in.
FY2026 was the deadliest year on record in ICE custody
Thirty-seven deaths in ICE custody in FY2026 (October 2025 through September 2026), against 23 in FY2025 and 12 two years before that. Causes are described as varied, with many undetermined or still under investigation. The underlying Bloomberg Law reporting sits behind a paywall and was not read; the figures here come from a relaying outlet and should be attributed that way if they are used.
CiberCuba, October 1, relaying Bloomberg Law (summary-sourced at two removes)
ICE stored protester identities in Palantir, according to filings in an ACLU of Maine class action
Court documents in the class action over “Operation Catch of the Day” are described as showing that ICE photographed protesters and entered names, images, addresses, license plates, phone numbers and “cohabitants” into Palantir, tagged with labels including “Threat to Law Enforcement, Professional Protestor.” The post also cites research reporting that ICE can reach personally identifying information for at least 75 percent of U.S. adults. Neither the filings nor the Wired reporting was read here, and the case caption and docket were not captured.
California broadens the immigration-retaliation cause of action — AB 2495, effective January 1, 2027
The amended § 1019 is reported to cover rights arising under any local, state or federal statute rather than a closed list; to extend to applicants and former employees, not only current employees; to reach conduct that “reasonably tends to dissuade,” without requiring a completed adverse action; and to provide that a worker's actual immigration status cannot determine liability. Prohibited conduct includes excessive document requests, misuse of E-Verify and threats of immigration enforcement. There is a carve-out for conduct undertaken at the express direction of the federal government.
Jackson Lewis via National Law Review, September 30 (summary-sourced)
3 · Monitoring
Thirteen itemsNovember 2026 Visa Bulletin not yet published
October remains the latest on the DOS index; the November URL returns 404 and the index lists it as coming soon, which is normal for the first week of the month. Watch two things when it lands: whether EB-2 Rest of World moves off the January 1, 2025 final action date it retrogressed to, and whether USCIS keeps designating the Dates for Filing chart, which it reassesses monthly and has not committed to beyond October. DOS Visa Bulletin index
October chart designation re-verified; the bulletin tables themselves now read in full
The October bulletin was reported in last week's edition and is not new, but its tables were confirmed against the primary source this week and two figures in circulation are wrong: EB-1 Dates for Filing for China and India is 01JUL24, EB-2 Rest of World Dates for Filing is 15MAR26 against a final action date of 01JAN25, EB-3 Rest of World is 01AUG24 filing against 15MAY24 final action, and EB-5 Unreserved India is 01MAY24 filing against 01DEC23 final action. The bulletin's own text directs adjustment applicants to the final action chart “unless otherwise indicated” on the USCIS website; the Dates for Filing designation for October is reported by AILA and Ogletree and could not be read on the USCIS page, which returns 403. October 2026 Visa Bulletin
$103,265 cap-subject H-1B fee — comments closed September 24, final rule awaited
FR Doc. 2026-17324 (91 FR, August 25, 2026; corrected September 10), CIS No. 2861-26, Docket USCIS-2026-0298. The proposal would charge $103,265 with every cap-subject H-1B petition including the advanced-degree exemption, on top of all other fees, and does not reach extensions, change-of-employer or amended petitions. It is a separate instrument from the proclamation payment now enjoined in Global Nurse Force and is unaffected by that order. NFAP's comment argued DHS overstated annual revenue by $6.1 billion. A final rule would draw immediate litigation. FR Doc. 2026-17324
Duration-of-status rule remains postponed with no stated end date
Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. DHS, D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS. The court postponed the DHS final rule ending duration of status for F-1, J-1 and I holders, finding the national security justification arbitrary and capricious, days before its September 15 effective date. F, J and I holders need not file extensions with USCIS while it stands. An October 2 status conference was on last week's calendar; no order issued from it was located. Relevant here as the upstream status for F-1 clients converting to O-1A or filing NIW self-petitions. Ogletree summary
Public charge rule in effect and unenjoined
FR Doc. 2026-14539 (July 20, 2026), CIS No. 2857-26, effective for I-485s postmarked or electronically submitted on or after September 18 and for admissions on or after that date; pre-September 18 benefit receipt is evaluated under the 2022 rule. Officers assess whether the applicant is likely at any time to depend on the government for basic needs, and Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP and WIC are in scope. Open question this brief has not resolved: how the rule interacts with employment-based I-485s, where there is no I-864 and the exemption analysis differs. Read the rule text before advising an EB-1A or NIW adjustment applicant with any benefit history. FR Doc. 2026-14539
PERM and prevailing wage processing times
FLAG as of the latest posted refresh: PERM analyst review and audit review both at a December 2025 priority date; reconsideration requests at April 2026. Prevailing wage determinations, OEWS and non-OEWS alike for both H-1B and PERM, at June 2026 receipt dates; H-2A and H-2B PWDs at August 2026. H-2A averaged 17 calendar days; OFLC reported first notices issued on 100 percent of January–July 2026 H-2B applications. No new OFLC announcement in the window — the newest items on the news page are September 17 (records management) and September 2 (H-2A AEWR compliance under UFW v. DOL, with possible future back-pay adjustments). FLAG processing times
Mandatory e-filing interim final rule — still no form designated
FR Doc. 2026-16313 (August 11, 2026), CIS No. 2853-26, Docket USCIS-2026-0232, effective on publication. It gives USCIS authority to require e-filing for specified benefit requests but designates none. Practitioner reporting describes a structure in which a form must be e-fileable for 180 days before mandatory designation, with at least 60 days' notice and hardship waivers available — that description is firm-sourced, not read from the rule. The lists circulating of forms “likely” to be designated, I-129 and I-485 among them, are firm predictions and not agency designations. Watch for the first designation notice. FR Doc. 2026-16313
Genalo v. District of Columbia — response due October 21
No. 26-379, certiorari before judgment on prolonged § 1226(c) detention and the availability of a bond hearing. Still pending as of compilation, with the District's brief due October 21. Now one of two detention vehicles before the Court alongside the granted Rhoney petition, on a different statutory provision. Supreme Court docket, No. 26-379
No new BIA precedent; EOIR's public notices page quiet
Volume 29's newest entry remains Matter of A-Q-R-K-, 29 I&N Dec. 865 (BIA 2026), decided July 31 and designated precedent by AG Order No. 7118-2026 on September 1 — all before this window. The three below it are R-P-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 859 (Aug. 28, civil penalty for failure to depart under a voluntary departure order), W-F-D-, 29 I&N Dec. 854 (Aug. 25, immigration judges generally lack jurisdiction to redetermine custody conditions once a removal order is administratively final), and Matter of Jones, 29 I&N Dec. 850 (Aug. 24, an attorney restricted from practice in another jurisdiction does not meet the regulatory definition of “attorney”). The newest EOIR notice is September 24, announcing 47 immigration judges and six temporary IJs. The Part V policy memoranda index was not opened, so a memo posted there cannot be ruled out. BIA Volume 29
AILA practice alerts could not be enumerated — againMember-gated
The public news feed surfaced only Daily Immigration News Clips for September 28, 29, 30 and October 1 and 2. No practice alert, practice pointer or AILA Doc. number issued inside the window was visible to a server-side fetch, and the Research Library listing is driven by an external JavaScript search application that returns nothing. This is the second consecutive week the gated leg of the sweep is a hole rather than a finding: a logged-in pass on aila.org/library filtered to Practice Alerts for September 28 to October 4 would close it in five minutes. AILA Immigration News
PA-2026-05 still governs how evidence and RFEs are adjudicated
Repeated from last week because it has not moved and remains the most consequential 2026 policy item for this practice — more consequential than anything in this edition. Nothing in the window amended it. Any drafting change made this quarter should be measured against PA-2026-05 first and against the AAO trend below second. USCIS Policy Manual updates (403, not read)
PRA notices with comment deadlines inside the window
Four to note, none substantive but each a chance to be heard on a form this office files: Form G-325R Biographic Information (Registration), extension without change, OMB 1615-0166, FR Doc. 2026-19756 (September 28), comments close November 27. Form I-140 extension without change, comments close November 13, in a batch that also covers I-129, I-526/I-526E, I-360 and I-601A. ICE Designation of Attorney in Fact, OMB 1653-0041, FR Doc. 2026-19853 (September 29), 30-day notice, comments close October 29. CBP CR-TAP new collection, FR Doc. 2026-20229 (October 2), comments close November 2. FR Doc. 2026-19756
EB-4 Certain Religious Workers expires December 11
The October bulletin states that H.R. 6500, signed September 2, 2026, extends the Employment Fourth Preference Certain Religious Workers (SR) category only through December 11, 2026. Final action and filing dates for the category are 15DEC22 and 01JAN25 respectively across all chargeability areas. Seven days past the sixty-day horizon and therefore on the calendar above; flagged here because the pattern of these extensions is short and late, and a client with an SR petition in the pipeline should not be told the date is likely to move. October 2026 Visa Bulletin, § D
4 · Adjudication Trend · AAO
Non-precedent decisionsNothing new posted in the four categories this week. The repository's most-recent list, read in a browser today, still tops out at August 31, 2026 for B2 extraordinary ability, with a single September 1 entry that is an I-601 waiver (H5212). No September B2, B5, D8 or D9 decision has appeared, and the August 24–31 B2 cohort analyzed in last week's edition is still the leading edge. Two mechanical notes for anyone repeating this: the directory_code URL parameter does not filter the most-recent list — it renders the same unfiltered rows regardless of value, so category isolation requires the on-page select, not a query string; and the repository reports 169,813 total rows against a ten-row page, so enumeration by paging is not a strategy. This week's read therefore went down rather than forward, into the July and early-August cohort that last week's edition did not reach: twelve B2 decisions (July 1–27), four B5 (July 27–August 6), six D8 (March 17–June 17) and two D9, all read in full text. Every merits appeal below was dismissed.
EB-1A · B2 — twelve July decisions read, all dismissed
The pattern across the month is that the AAO takes USCIS's favorable criterion findings apart as readily as its adverse ones. In In Re: 40527144 (July 24, a pharmacist), USCIS had found three criteria satisfied; the AAO withdrew the high-remuneration finding on the ground that the petitioner's actual employment — refurbished-goods program management — was “immaterial to the claimed area of extraordinary ability” in pharmaceutical regulatory affairs, then reversed USCIS in the petitioner's favor on published material and scholarly articles because relative circulation had been shown, and dismissed anyway on the final merits. In In Re: 40777508 (July 7, a crop protection researcher) it withdrew the judging finding because describing participation in a collaborative review article does not show the petitioner judged the work of others. Do not build a strategy on criteria the Service has already conceded.
Original contributions. The AAO's working line is that funded, patented or published work “will not necessarily establish, on its own, that the work is of major significance,” and that significance is “viewed by the overall field, rather than by a solicited few.” Letters were discounted where they described and praised the research without explaining what the field did with it, and a co-author's letter was held limited in reach to “Dr. A-T-'s research team.” Securing funding was held not to be a contribution of major significance (In Re: 40640733, July 7). The operative sentence to write against: not every research study that broadens knowledge in a particular field constitutes a contribution of major significance.
High remuneration (ix) and comparable evidence (x). Comparison data must be position- and geography-appropriate wage data for the actual claimed field. Earnings calculators, influencer rate sheets and a Salary.com figure showing below-median pay were all rejected (In Re: 40776815, July 27, a culinary writer and social-media content developer; 40527144). On comparable evidence the AAO wants “a detailed, specific, and credible statement” of why the criterion does not readily apply, and held social-media metrics not comparable to box-office or sales receipts. Self-promotional published material is discounted expressly for lacking “information to support the self-promotional assertions.”
Final merits. The AAO is leaning on sustained as a word with content, quoting Black's Law Dictionary — “to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time.” In 40527144 a record of three articles about the petitioner (2021, 2024, 2025), three co-authored articles with one or zero citations, and two reviews was held insufficient despite three criteria being met, as a cluster of recent items near the filing date rather than sustained acclaim. Drafting consequence: the final-merits narrative has to be built on a timeline, not an inventory. If the strongest evidence is all from the eighteen months before filing, say in the letter why the career arc explains that and document the earlier years, or expect this exact paragraph back.
Membership (ii) for athletes. In In Re: 42776346 (July 10, a karate athlete) national team membership “may satisfy” the criterion, but the AAO “will not assume that every ‘national team’ is sufficiently exclusive.” Testimonial letters about the selection panel's expertise failed where the governing cabinet resolution did not corroborate them. Document the selection standard from the federation's own instrument, not from the selectors.
EB-2 NIW · B5 — four decisions read (July 27–Aug 6), all dismissed, all on Dhanasar prong one
Every merits decision in the cohort turned on national importance and expressly reserved prongs two and three. That is the single most actionable fact in this section: prong one is where these cases are being lost, and the well-position and balancing arguments are never reached. Decisions read: In Re: 40106984 (July 29, post-quantum cryptography toolkits), 41000180 (July 31, argument mining for clinical records), 43632595 (Aug 3, pilot and aviation-software entrepreneur), 43764193 (Aug 6, machine learning for semiconductor wafer defect detection).
The AAO has a settled answer to national-priority framing, and it is no. From the August 6 decision: a proposed endeavor “does not satisfy the national importance requirement simply because it aligns with a national initiative, policy priority, or governmental goal.” It also rejects the reading that Dhanasar itself turned on field importance, holding that the Dhanasar materials “supplied factual context” while the decision turned on the particular work proposed and evidence of broader effects. And from July 31: doing important work goes to substantial merit; national importance requires “a noteworthy, distinct, and qualitative impact.” Chains of attenuated consequence are dismissed as a “butterfly effect” theory.
What failed, concretely. Letters that discussed past work, praised the petitioner, or addressed something other than the proposed endeavor drew little weight, and in the August 3 decision were called “largely conclusory” for asserting national relevance without explaining how day-to-day operations reach it. A business plan projecting 28 jobs, $2 million in payroll and $17 million in revenue over five years was rejected because the plan never explained how the figures were derived and nothing independent supported them. Claimed participation in standards groups, open-source projects and conferences was disregarded where the record “does not include evidence of the Petitioner's contributions”; open-source toolkits failed for want of adoption scale, funding and timeline.
Two procedural holdings worth more than the merits analysis. First, post-filing evidence is out: in the August 6 decision the AAO invoked 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1) and (12) and Matter of Izummi to exclude an updated employer letter resting on publications and a conference that post-dated filing, and separately held the petitioner could not disclaim dependence on a particular employer while relying on that employer for the impact showing. Past funding was pushed into prong two and out of prong one's forward-looking analysis. Second, the AAO reviews the underlying EB-2 classification de novo: in the August 3 decision it withdrew USCIS's favorable finding and held a three-year Brazilian bachelor's degree not equivalent to a U.S. four-year degree on AACRAO EDGE.
O-1A · D8 — six decisions read (Mar 17–Jun 17); no July or August O-1 decision retrievable
The most recent is In Re: 43292197 (June 17, a robotics and welding specialist) where USCIS had accepted only the scholarly-articles criterion. Also read: 42347486 (May 5, executive sous chef) and 42248211 (April 29), both O-1B arts-type decisions under (o)(3)(iv), included for the shared reasoning on roles; 41989986 (April 2, a university global-engagement coordinator); 41713212 (April 2, a badminton coach); and 41067947 (March 17, an equestrian eventing trainer). That the newest is June is a gap in this sweep, not a statement that the AAO stopped issuing O-1 decisions.
The strongest holding is about timing, not substance. In the June 17 decision the AAO refused to consider comparable-evidence arguments “raised for the first time on appeal,” citing NRA v. Vullo, 144 S. Ct. 1316, 1330 n.5, and held that counsel's assertion that an occupation is unsuited to the standard criteria, unaccompanied by evidence, is not probative — adding that an inability to meet a criterion does not mean it “does not readily apply.” In the May 5 decision it refused new evidence on appeal for a criterion the petitioner had been put on notice of by RFE, citing Matter of Furtado, 28 I&N Dec. 794.
Memberships, published material, contributions. On memberships the AAO looks for the association's own admission requirements showing outstanding achievement judged by recognized national or international experts; certificates, website screenshots, partnership documents and general reputation do not suffice, and in the March 17 decision competing at the Preliminary level of a seven-level system was not “tantamount to outstanding achievements” with Intermediate and Advanced above it. Published results listing the beneficiary among hundreds of competitors are not material “about” the beneficiary, and the petitioner separately failed to show the outlets were professional, major trade or major media. On contributions, letters praising skills and describing work for named employers are insufficient without evidence of impact “on the overall field in a majorly significant manner”; presenting at a seminar or conference proves nothing about significance without proof of what the presentation did; and citation totals were discounted where self-citations could not be excluded and the data's reliability was not established.
P-1A · D9 — one P-1A decision retrievable (April 2); the category is effectively dark
Only one P-1A decision could be retrieved in this sweep — In Re: 41636515 (April 2, an indoor soccer player in the Major Arena Soccer League), appeal dismissed. An August 5 D9 decision (In Re: 43711396) exists but is a P-3 culturally-unique matter concerning lantern artisans, dismissed under 8 CFR 214.2(p)(6)(i)(A), and was not analyzed. The thinness is an access limitation, not evidence about P-1A adjudication volume.
The dispositive ground was the contract, not the athlete. The petition, filed in November 2023, enclosed a “Sales and Marketing Contract” listing non-athletic duties. INA § 214(c)(4)(A)(ii)(I) requires entry “temporarily and solely” to perform as an athlete in a specific competition. The AAO refused to credit an August 2025 addendum disclaiming the non-player duties, citing 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1) and Matter of Izummi for the rule that “a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed” — and because the petitioner did not challenge that ground on appeal, the AAO treated it as waived.
The alternative holding is the reputation of the competition. The record was held insufficient to show that MASL games have a distinguished reputation requiring internationally recognized athletes. The AAO applied the Policy Manual factors — viewership, attendance, revenue, major media coverage, past participation by internationally recognized athletes, rankings, and merit-based participation requirements — and cited Blast v. Mayorkas, 695 F. Supp. 3d 618 (D. Md. 2023). A handful of retired MLS players and some national-team participants did not carry it, and a 2019 article describing the league's efforts to gain attention was read against the petitioner.
Read in full. The GPO full text of four Federal Register documents, which is the one reliable way past the federalregister.gov CAPTCHA this environment hits: the FY2027 H.R. 1 fee notice at 91 FR 62540 including Table 1 in its entirety; the EOIR OBBBA fee notice at 91 FR 61447 including its fee table; the 60-day grace-period NPRM at 91 FR 57807, from which the E/H/L/O-1/TN classification list and the 8 CFR 204.5(p)(1)(i) cross-reference footnote are quoted directly; and the EB-5 fee final rule at 91 FR 61941, from which the per-form amounts are quoted off the amendments to 8 CFR 106.2(d). Also read in full: the Supreme Court dockets in No. 26-426 and No. 26A406 (including the October 1 briefing order and argument date) and No. 26-104; the October 2026 Visa Bulletin employment-based tables, chart note and § D religious-worker note; the EOIR Volume 29 page and notices page; the USCIS AAO non-precedent most-recent list, read in a browser; and twenty-four AAO decisions (twelve B2, four B5, six D8, two D9) read as extracted PDF text. The Federal Register API was queried by document number for each rulemaking cited.
Summary-sourced — do not quote as a holding or a rule. PA-2026-15 in its entirety, including the day-counted versus event-triggered distinction and the paper-versus-electronic question, which three published accounts describe differently; the October Dates-for-Filing chart designation by USCIS; the Form I-129 edition cutoff of November 9, carried from last week without re-verification; the Global Nurse Force preliminary injunction's scope and findings (the order itself was not read; the docket number, No. 4:25-cv-08454 in the Northern District of California, is confirmed); the question presented in Rhoney, which comes from SCOTUSblog and JURIST rather than from any court filing; the visa bond terms; the ICE custody death figures, which are summary-sourced at two removes from a paywalled Bloomberg Law investigation; the ICE/Palantir filings; California AB 2495; the duration-of-status postponement; the mandatory e-filing 180-day and 60-day mechanics; the FLAG processing figures; and the Cyrus Mehta October 5 Matter of Ho analysis, read from the archive page rather than the permalink.
Source access failures. uscis.gov returns HTTP 403 to every fetcher available to this run — the cloud shell, the document fetcher, and a shell on the local machine alike, which rules out the possibility that it is a datacenter-IP block alone. The newsroom, policy-manual updates, forms-updates and policy-alert PDFs are all unreadable by that route, so every USCIS-sourced item here is either secondary-confirmed or came through the Federal Register. The browser pane did reach uscis.gov and was used to read the AAO most-recent list; it is the route to use for PA-2026-15 and the I-129 edition date. web.archive.org is blocked by egress policy in the cloud shell; the AAO PDFs were recovered through its id_ replay by subagent and the CDX and availability APIs returned blocks and 429s, so AAO enumeration was by constructed filename and search rather than by directory listing — the twenty-four decisions read are a sample, not the cohort. federalregister.gov serves a CAPTCHA to its own full-text URLs; govinfo.gov served the same documents cleanly. travel.state.gov refused the shell behind Cloudflare and succeeded through the document fetcher. CourtListener rate-limited after a handful of calls (“125/day”), which means the circuit-court sweep of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits for September 28 to October 4 did not run — an empty result there is throttling, not a finding, and this edition reports no new circuit decision because it could not look, not because there is none. Fragomen and BAL produced nothing for the window: Fragomen's insights listing served February 2026 content and its October alerts returned 403, and bal.com/news-resources is a 404. Greenberg Traurig returned an unrendered JavaScript template. JD Supra served a stale 2024 page for the second consecutive week. Jackson Lewis and Fisher Phillips surfaced no dated immigration items; the one Jackson Lewis item here was reached through the National Law Review. Note also that the document fetcher returns a model-generated summary rather than verbatim text, so “read in full” above is reserved for pages retrieved as raw text or PDF through the shell or the browser.
Member-gated. AILA No practice alert or practice pointer issued September 28 to October 4 could be enumerated. The public feed carried only Daily Immigration News Clips for September 28, 29 and 30 and October 1 and 2; the Research Library listing is served by an external JavaScript search application that returns nothing to a server-side fetch. The clips themselves were not read. This is a hole in the sweep rather than a finding of no activity, and it is the same hole as last week.
Unresolved conflicts. PA-2026-15. VisaVerge says online filings lose the next-business-day extension outright because electronic submissions are received when sent; Cyrus Mehta describes only a day-counted versus age-based distinction with no paper/electronic split; AILA frames the alert as adjustment-specific. All three cannot be right, the difference decides whether an e-filed RFE response is timely, and nobody in this sweep read the alert. EOIR appeal and motion fees. Figures of $1,060 for appeals, $1,095 for motions to reopen or reconsider and $730 to $1,690 for cancellation circulate in practitioner summaries and are not in the September 29 notice; they would have to come from the August 21 final rule at 91 FR 54211, which was not read. Public charge and employment-based adjustment. The rule is in effect, but how it applies to an EB-1A or NIW I-485 where there is no I-864 was not resolved here and should not be assumed either way. The Big Bend injunction. One secondary source, no court document, no caption, no docket.
Confirmed absences. No new BIA precedent decision; Volume 29 still ends at A-Q-R-K-, designated September 1. No new EOIR policy memorandum or practice change located, though the Part V memoranda index was not opened. No DOL or OFLC rulemaking or announcement in the window — the labor-department Federal Register documents were OSHA, MSHA and PRA matters, and the only ETA item was a WIOA reporting notice. The CBP and ICE agency filters returned only the fee notices and two collections. No new entry-restriction proclamation. No new B2, B5, D8 or D9 AAO decision posted since last week's edition, confirmed in the browser. No November Visa Bulletin. No O-1 or P-1 practitioner commentary of any kind surfaced this week, which is a recurring blank rather than a judgment that nothing is happening.
Explicitly not new this week, because each keeps resurfacing as though it were: the October 2026 Visa Bulletin, reported in last week's edition and carried here only as verified tables and a chart-designation caveat; PA-2026-15 (announced September 23) and PA-2026-14 (effective September 23); Proclamation 11069 and Executive Order 14431 (Federal Register, September 23); the DOS online-presence expansion to I, TN and TD (announced September 18, effective October 1 — and O and P remain off the published list, which is not a safe harbor); the public charge rule (July 20, effective September 18); the I-485 09/18/26, I-539 and I-765 09/15/26 and I-864 08/24/26 editions; the $103,265 H-1B cap fee NPRM (August 25, comments closed September 24); the mandatory e-filing interim final rule (August 11); the EB-5 fee final rule announcement, carried last week and appearing here only for its now-verified amounts; the mass influx finding extension (September 21); and PA-2026-05 on evidence and RFEs (August 5), which remains the most consequential 2026 item for this practice and was not touched this week.
Compiled Monday, October 5, 2026