Corporate Immigration Law News

As we previously alerted, on June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order vacating the $100,000 H-1B fee. Such fee applies to all new H-1B hires who require processing at consulates outside the United States. The federal government has since filed a notice of appeal and moved to stay the district court’s ruling while that appeal proceeds.

On June 12, 2026, the Court entered an electronic order resolving the government’s motion. In doing so, Judge Sorokin denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal, relying on the reasoning set out in the court’s June 8 Memorandum and Order. The Court did, however, grant in part the government’s alternative request for an administrative stay.

Under the June 12 order, the court’s earlier order vacating the $100,000 H-1B fee is temporarily stayed. That administrative stay remains in effect pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the government’s anticipated motion to stay, and it is conditioned on the government filing that motion in the First Circuit no later than June 18, 2026.

For full details and practical implications, see the full Client Alert here.

If you have any questions please contact: Anthony F. Siliato, Scott R. Malyk, or Stacey A. Simon.

On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Sorokin, J.) invalidated the $100,000 payment requirement that Proclamation 10973 imposed on certain H-1B petitions in September 2025. Granting summary judgment to a coalition of twenty states, the court held that the payment is, in substance, an unauthorized tax.

The court reasoned that the payment is a tax rather than a penalty because hiring H-1B workers remains lawful, and that INA §§ 212(f) and 215(a)—which authorize the President to impose “restrictions,” “rules,” “limitations,” and “exceptions” on the entry of noncitizens—do not, by their ordinary meaning, include the power to tax. Applying the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the court found that Congress had not clearly delegated its taxing power and that the Policy was therefore ultra vires. The court also confirmed that the states had standing, that the consular-nonreviewability doctrine did not bar their forward-looking challenge, and that the agencies’ implementation was reviewable under the APA.

Click here for additional details on this Client Alert.

If you have any questions please contact: Anthony F. Siliato, Scott R. Malyk, or Stacey A. Simon.

On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, which formally reframes its position that adjustment of status under INA § 245 is a matter of “discretion and administrative grace” — an extraordinary form of relief that permits applicants to bypass the ordinary consular immigrant visa process. While USCIS characterizes the memorandum as a reminder of longstanding policy, its practical effect is to signal a more rigorous discretionary framework that will directly affect employer-sponsored green card cases and the foreign national employees who depend on them.

The memorandum instructs USCIS officers to treat every adjustment of status application as a request for an exceptional benefit, not a routine procedural step. Officers are directed to weigh the totality of an applicant’s circumstances — including any violations of immigration status, unauthorized employment, fraud, or conduct inconsistent with the purpose of the applicant’s nonimmigrant admission or parole — as adverse factors that the applicant must overcome by demonstrating “unusual or even outstanding equities.” Critically, the memorandum states that the mere absence of adverse factors is not, by itself, sufficient to merit a favorable exercise of discretion.

Click here for additional details on this Client Alert.

If you have any questions please contact: Anthony F. Siliato, Scott R. Malyk, or Stacey A. Simon.