U.S. immigration changes every week: a new rule, a court decision, a deadline that opens or closes. The Radar follows those changes at the official source and records them in short notes, so you know what changed before deciding your next step.
2 September 2026Birthright citizenship
Court halts the August executive order on birthright citizenship as to a defined group of children
On 6 August 2026, the President signed Executive Order 14418, published in the Federal Register on 11 August at 91 FR 51991. It lists situations in which, according to its text, a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents would not be covered by birthright citizenship, and directs that no federal agency issue or accept documents recognizing that citizenship in those cases.
On 2 September, a federal judge in Maryland barred federal agencies from applying that order against a group already defined in the case CASA, Inc. v. Trump: children born in the United States after 19 February 2025 whose mother was in the country without status or with lawful but temporary presence, and whose father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident on the day of birth. The ruling rests on a Supreme Court decision from this year, which had already recognized the citizenship of those children.
The ruling is preliminary, applies while the case proceeds, and remains subject to appeal. It reaches only those inside that group, does not prevent the government from issuing the implementing guidance provided for in the order itself, and did not decide, in the abstract, whether each of the order's categories is constitutional. Anyone with a child born in the United States and questions about that child's documents should have the situation checked case by case, on the date a decision has to be made.
The U.S. government has suspended issuance of lottery visas, with no exception and no date to resume
The visa lottery is an annual program of up to 55,000 immigrant visas, open to people from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. The list of countries changes each year and appears in the program's official instructions. On 31 August 2026 the Department of State announced that it had stopped issuing these visas. The official page itself states that there is no exception, and gives no date for resuming.
The process has not stopped entirely, and that distinction matters. Anyone with an interview scheduled keeps it: applicants may submit their documents and attend, and consulates continue to schedule new interviews. What does not happen is issuance. No one receives the visa at the end of the process while the pause lasts. Those who already hold a valid visa are unaffected, because nothing was revoked on account of this guidance.
For those in this year's program, the calendar is the problem. Eligibility under the 2026 lottery ends on 30 September 2026 and has not been extended. It is also worth noting how the announcement was made, because the lesson applies to other situations: in the same text, the Department reports that it complied with an August court order that had struck down an earlier pause, and imposes this new pause, on a different ground. Winning in court does not, by itself, guarantee that the door stays open. Before buying tickets or giving up commitments in your country, confirm the state of the rule on the day.
Justice Department broadens the reach of the states' duty to report to DHS persons they know to be unlawfully present
A 1996 federal statute, PRWORA, conditioned funding for two assistance programs, TANF and SSI, on the state furnishing the federal government with the name and address of anyone the state knows to be unlawfully present in the United States. Since 1998 the federal government itself had read that duty as falling only on the state agency that administers those programs.
On 1 September 2026, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel withdrew that reading. The word State in the statute is now taken to reach every agency of the state, not only the welfare agency. According to the Department's press release, all fifty states, the District of Columbia and territories participate in both programs.
The statute did not change: what changed is how the Executive reads it. The opinion applies prospectively, does not allow clawback of funds already disbursed, and depends on federal agencies updating grant agreements and compliance processes. It also does not change who is eligible for which benefit. Anyone with a pending case or a question about their own situation should have it checked case by case, on the date a decision has to be made.
The affidavit of support form changed today, and the old version is no longer accepted
The affidavit of support is the document in which a family member, or another sponsor, takes on responsibility before the U.S. government for supporting the person who is immigrating. It is Form I-864. There is now a new version, and only that one is accepted. There is no transition period, and what counts is the date of filing, not the date the case began.
It takes seconds to check. The version date is printed at the foot of every page of the form. The one that applies now is 08/24/26. If the document already filled in says 10/17/24, it has to be redone before it goes to the post office or into the system.
There is also one new feature the sponsor should know about before signing. By signing the new version, the sponsor authorizes the government to consult their record with the U.S. credit reporting companies. Many people living in the United States keep that record frozen against inquiries, as a precaution against fraud. With the record frozen, the government may not obtain the data it needs to review the affidavit, and the case is delayed. It is worth checking this with the sponsor before filing, and lifting the freeze if there is one.
Immigrant visa interviews rescheduled worldwide: what the Government itself told the judge
On 28 August 2026, in the New York case that struck down the 75-country rule, the Department of State filed a sworn declaration by the official in charge of consular affairs. It states that the Bureau of Consular Affairs is rescheduling immigrant visa appointments, to allow time to send guidance to consulates and to account for updated procedures in applying the public charge ground of inadmissibility. It is the first official confirmation of the rescheduling.
In the same filing, the Government describes this as a temporary rescheduling, through 31 August. On 30 August, the plaintiffs replied that the rescheduling reaches beyond August, and presented instances of September interviews cancelled at consulates in several countries. The court has not yet decided who is right, and has set a hearing for 31 August to address exactly that.
Anyone with an immigrant visa interview scheduled should check the date in the consulate account or in the National Visa Center system before buying tickets, and keep any cancellation notice they receive. Anyone whose application was refused because of the 75-country rule may ask the consulate where the case now stands: the rule was vacated on 21 August and the Government has told the court it treats it as no longer in force.
A California judge declares it unconstitutional to revoke a visa over an opinion, and even so your routine today does not change
On 28 August 2026, Federal Judge Noël Wise, in California, decided Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation v. Rubio. She declared that two rules of the immigration statute violate the Constitution when used because of protected speech. The statute says no one is deportable for lawful beliefs, statements or associations, but it opens an exception: the Secretary of State may declare the person deportable all the same, if he himself decides that their presence runs counter to an important foreign policy interest. It is that exception that fell, together with the rule allowing a visa to be revoked at any time, at his discretion or that of a consular officer.
The decision is a declaration, not an order. The judge recorded that the statute reserves to the Supreme Court the power to enjoin enforcement of the deportation rule, and for that reason denied that request. It stands as the decision of one federal trial court, and it may be appealed. No consulate, no airport and no USCIS office has changed its procedure because of it.
In practice, this: anyone holding a visa or a green card still has their social media reviewed in visa applications and status reviews, and the remaining removal grounds in the statute remain untouched, including those tied to terrorism and national security. The decision is good news for the constitutional debate; it is not permission for anyone. Before posting anything that could be read as support for an organization or for violence, talk to your lawyer.
Another judge rules against the 75-country rule, but that ruling does not reach Brazilians
On 28 August 2026, a federal judge in California, in Medani v. Trump, ruled against the rule directing consulates to refuse green cards to people born in one of 75 countries, created by State Department guidance of 2 February 2026. The list includes Brazil, but the ruling does not: it protects only the people drawn in the 2026 round of the green card lottery, a program Brazil does not take part in.
For Brazilians, what still governs is the New York ruling of 21 August, in CLINIC v. Rubio, which struck that same rule down for everyone affected by it. The Government has already told the court it is complying, and the judge has set a hearing for 31 August to check whether that is so.
The Medani ruling still says something useful: it is the second court, at opposite ends of the country, to hold that refusing a visa because of nationality, without looking at each person's situation, is unlawful. Anyone whose application was refused or frozen because of this rule should contact the consulate and ask where the case stands.
The Government says the 75-country rule is over and that consulates have resumed scheduling interviews
On 28 August 2026, the U.S. Government told the New York judge, in CLINIC v. Rubio, that the rule directing the refusal of green cards to people born in one of 75 countries, Brazil included, no longer applies, and that it is already complying with the decision that struck it down.
According to what the Government filed, consulates have received new instructions, including to review those refused solely because of that rule, and have resumed scheduling interviews. The State Department page that announced the rule was updated on that same 28 August and now says, right at the top, that the January pause is no longer in effect.
It is now for the judge to say whether he accepts that answer, and the hearing is on 31 August. Until then, anyone whose application was refused or whose interview was cancelled because of the rule should contact the consulate and ask where their case stands.
Another ruling against the 75-country rule, this time with a thirty-day deadline for the Government
On 25 August 2026, a federal judge in Washington, in Storie v. Trump, ordered the State Department to stop applying to the people in that case the 75-country rule, created by the Department's own guidance of 2 February 2026.
The order went beyond telling it to stop. It required giving each of them back the place in the queue that the rule had taken away, and deciding within thirty days the applications refused because of it, issuing the visa to anyone who would already qualify. The Government must report back by 8 September.
One point in the ruling shows the size of the problem. Under the Government's own internal guidance, the rule was applied only once the consulate had already concluded that there was no other reason to refuse the visa. It therefore hit precisely those who would have been approved. The case also brought to light an internal document saying the rule would last "at least ninety days", a period long since expired.
Note the limit: this ruling applies only to those who brought that case. Anyone who did not depends on the New York ruling of 21 August, in CLINIC v. Rubio, which struck the rule down for everyone affected by it.
Green card holders with an open criminal case should think twice before travelling
You have a green card, you travel abroad and you come back. At passport control, the officer can treat you in two different ways, and the choice changes everything.
As a rule, he treats you as a resident, someone who already lives in the country. In that case, if the Government wants to take your green card away, it is the Government that must prove there is a reason. But the law sets out situations in which the officer may treat you as if you were asking to enter for the first time. Then the burden flips: it becomes yours to prove that you may enter.
One of those situations is having committed a crime of a kind the law calls moral turpitude. On 23 June 2026, deciding Blanche v. Lau, the Supreme Court held that the officer does not need strong proof that the crime occurred in order to treat you in that second way. Less is enough than was required before.
In the case decided, the person was stopped because of a charge that had not even gone to trial. The guilty plea came a year later, and served to confirm that the crime already existed when he returned from his trip.
For those who travel with no criminal record at all, nothing changes. For anyone with an open charge, a case under way, or an old conviction, however minor, it is worth talking to a lawyer before buying the ticket.
Five days after the 75-country rule fell, those who sued went back to the judge saying nothing had changed
On 26 August 2026, five days after the courts struck down the rule directing the refusal of green cards to people born in one of 75 countries, Brazil among them, those who had sued the Government in CLINIC v. Rubio went back to the judge to say that nothing had changed in practice.
According to the filing, the official page setting out the rule was still published unchanged, and people were still being told the rule remained in force. And, within hours of the decision, consulates around the world began cancelling green card interviews, which the Government attributed to a training session for officers.
The judge ordered the Government to respond by 28 August and set a hearing for the 31st. In the meantime, anyone with a case under way should treat neither the rule nor its end as settled: the best course is to ask the consulate how their case stands.
People applying for U.S. citizenship may again receive a visit from an investigator
Since 25 August 2026, USCIS has resumed neighborhood investigations for people applying for U.S. citizenship. The practice is set out in section 335(a) of the immigration statute and had fallen into disuse; the agency revived it by changing the Policy Manual, the handbook its officers follow.
In practice, an investigator identified as USCIS may approach neighbors, landlords, bosses, colleagues, business partners and clients to ask about your conduct, where you live, your reputation and your ties to the community. The period covered is at least five years before the application, and it may reach further back, including outside the United States.
It applies to everyone, including those who have already filed and are waiting. As a rule, the investigation is completed before the interview.
USCIS may waive the investigation, and there is something you can do to help that decision: file, together with Form N-400, at least two reference letters, preferably from U.S. citizens who know you personally. A letter from a relative does not count, and failing to provide them may weigh against you.
If the investigation turns up anything capable of sinking the application, USCIS must notify you and give you a chance to respond.
Government proposes an extra fee of US$ 103,265 per H-1B petition, and it is not in force yet
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed charging an extra fee of US$ 103,265 for every H-1B petition that competes for the annual limit, including those that benefit from the set-aside for people with a U.S. graduate degree. It would be paid at filing and added to the fees that already exist.
According to the USCIS announcement, the money would cover part of the federal cost of running the immigration system. The figure put forward is about US$ 8.8 billion a year, across the 85,000 petitions within the annual limit.
Left out are those who do not compete for that limit, such as higher education institutions, governmental research organizations and certain nonprofit research organizations.
The most important point is this: for now it is only a proposal, and it does not apply. It was published in the Federal Register on 25 August 2026, under number 91 FR 54817, and opens thirty days for public comment. Companies that hire through H-1B and workers in the queue would do well to follow it, because the final text may come out different.
Court strikes down the rule suspending green cards from 75 countries, Brazil among them
On 21 August 2026, in CLINIC v. Rubio, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, in New York, struck down the rule of 21 January 2026 that suspended the issuance of green cards to people born in one of 75 countries, Brazil among them.
The ruling identified three problems. The rule discriminates on the basis of nationality when issuing the visa, which federal law expressly forbids (8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A)). It requires the consulate to refuse without any legal reason to do so, contrary to what 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) and 22 C.F.R. § 40.6 demand. And it goes beyond the power the statute gives the Secretary of State.
The rule fell in its entirety, and not only for those who brought that case. Refusals that rested on it alone were annulled, and those cases go back for fresh review. Anyone refused on another ground remains refused.
The judge did not suspend the effects of her own decision, and it may be appealed. On 24 August, the official State Department page still showed the suspension as if it were in force.
Birth tourism: the Government tightens the rules and will review visas already issued
On 6 August 2026, the President signed Executive Order 14419, published in the Federal Register under number 91 FR 51993, to tighten the response to so-called birth tourism: travelling to the United States so that a child is born there and receives U.S. citizenship.
The order hands the Secretaries of State and of Homeland Security the power set out in section 215(a) of the immigration statute to deny and revoke visas, bar entry and remove from the country anyone who makes such a trip or helps someone else make it.
The concern is not new. Since 2020, the consular regulation has already required officers to presume against anyone applying for a visitor visa for that purpose (22 C.F.R. § 41.31(b)(2)). What changes is the weight: the subject has moved up to presidential level and gained an enforcement structure of its own.
One point matters to those who already hold a visa. On 12 August, the State Department announced that it will review visas already issued.
Visa refused over the risk of relying on public benefits: there is a new route, but you cannot ask for it
The State Department has begun a pilot program for people whose green card is refused at the consulate on the ground that they may come to rely on public assistance in the United States, a situation the law calls public charge (section 212(a)(4)).
In those cases, the consular officer may refer the person to apply to USCIS for a kind of surety, the public charge bond, using Form I-945. If the bond is approved, the visa previously refused may be issued.
One detail decides everything: you cannot take the initiative. It is the consular officer who chooses who enters the program.
The official page announcing the program is dated 5 August 2026 and refers to the Policy Manual, the handbook USCIS officers follow. Amounts and the countries where the pilot begins circulated in the press, but are not in the official source, and for that reason we do not repeat them here.
F-1 students can no longer stay for as long as the course lasts, and get a fixed deadline instead
A rule published in the Federal Register under number 91 FR 44976 ends what is called duration of status for F-1, J-1 and I visas. Today, holders of those visas may stay in the country for as long as the course or programme lasts; under the new rule, they receive a fixed period instead.
The date set for the change to take effect is 15 September 2026.
The rule is being challenged in court, in Massachusetts, in Presidents' Alliance v. DHS (1:26-cv-13799). There is a request to suspend it, still undecided, and a hearing set for 3 September. As of 24 August no suspension had been granted, which means that, for now, the 15 September date stands.
Anyone holding a student or exchange visa would do well to note both dates, because they change how you plan: 3 September, the hearing, and 15 September, the day the rule takes effect if nothing is decided before.
