May 2026 was one of the most consequential months for U.S. immigration policy this year. From sweeping USCIS policy changes and enhanced FBI vetting procedures to major debates around Adjustment of Status and employment-based green cards, the month brought developments that could significantly impact immigrants, employers, students, and families alike. Here’s a week-by-week roundup of the biggest U.S. immigration headlines from May 2026.
US Judge Rejects Trump Administration’s Halt on Immigration Applications
In a significant legal setback for the Trump administration, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick in Boston issued a preliminary injunction on April 30, 2026, ruling that certain USCIS policies making it harder for nationals of travel-ban countries to obtain green cards and work permits were both discriminatory and unlawful. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by approximately 200 people from 20 countries, including Iran, Haiti, Venezuela, and Syria, who challenged a sweeping halt on the processing of their immigration-related applications. The policies at the center of the lawsuit were adopted by USCIS beginning in November and targeted immigrants seeking asylum, green cards, and work authorization.
The legal challenge was triggered by executive actions the Trump administration took following a high-profile attack by an Afghan national on two National Guard officers in Washington, D.C. in late 2025. In the wake of that incident, the administration moved quickly to impose new restrictions on seeking asylum and pause all immigration applications, including those for green cards and naturalization, for nationals of countries on the president’s travel ban list. Judge Kobick, a Biden appointee, found those actions to be legally unsupported, writing in her ruling that the government’s justification rested on ‘thin reeds’ of reasoning when tying isolated violent incidents to a blanket suspension of applications across 20 nationalities.
The court’s injunction specifically blocked USCIS from enforcing its travel ban-linked policies against 22 of the 200 plaintiffs who sought immediate relief. For those individuals, many of whom had been waiting months for decisions on pending applications, the ruling offered a direct path back to adjudication. Immigration advocates celebrated the decision as an important check on executive overreach, while the administration signaled it would continue to pursue its immigration enforcement agenda through other legal avenues. The ruling did not permanently resolve the broader legal questions at stake but established that the policies, as applied, could not continue during the pendency of the litigation.
For immigrants from travel-ban countries navigating the US system, the ruling is a reminder that legal challenges to sweeping policy changes can succeed, but also that the landscape remains volatile. The injunction applies to the specific plaintiffs in this case; those not covered by the order may still face processing delays or denials linked to travel-ban policies. Immigration attorneys are advising affected applicants to monitor case status closely, document any delays, and consult legal counsel if their applications have been stalled without explanation. With the administration likely to appeal and pursue new enforcement mechanisms, this legal battle is far from over.
Fingerprint Re-Vetting Freeze Hits 11.6 Million Pending USCIS Cases
Beginning April 27, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services implemented a sweeping new security vetting protocol that has effectively frozen approvals across virtually every category of pending immigration application. Under the new directive , tied to Executive Order 14385 signed in February 2026, USCIS officers are required to rerun fingerprints for all pending cases through the FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) system, a significantly more expansive criminal database that includes state-level and municipal arrest records previously unavailable to USCIS adjudicators. No application, whether for a green card, naturalization, asylum, or Employment Authorization Document, may be approved until the enhanced background check clears.
The scale of the disruption is staggering. With roughly 11.6 million applications currently in USCIS’s backlog, triple the caseload of a decade ago, the re-vetting requirement amounts to a de facto processing freeze across the entire system. Internal guidance obtained by immigration law firms confirmed that adjudicators received direct instructions to halt approvals pending completion of the new checks. Applicants are not receiving individual notices about the hold; many are discovering the freeze only when their online case status stalls without explanation or when biometrics rescheduling letters arrive. USCIS has publicly stated that delays ‘should be brief and resolved shortly,’ but has offered no firm timeline, and internal estimates suggest the agency is processing fingerprint batches and hopes to clear most cases by late May 2026.
The consequences for real people are already cascading. Employment Authorization Documents are expiring for workers whose renewals are stuck in the freeze, leading to job losses and abandoned offers. Adjustment of status applicants without advance parole face travel risks if they leave the US while their green card applications are pending. Federal litigation has begun: in Behdin v. Edlow, a California judge ordered USCIS to adjudicate 32 long-stalled EAD renewals, signaling that blanket administrative holds may run afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act. Class-action suits are expected to proliferate as the duration of the delays becomes clearer. Certain limited exceptions have been carved out; as of May 11, USCIS lifted the hold for foreign physicians after reports that many had lost work authorization and stopped seeing patients.
For applicants with pending USCIS cases, the practical advice from immigration attorneys is consistent: do not assume your case is lost or denied if it goes silent. The freeze is administrative, not a substantive rejection. Maintain valid travel documents, including advance parole if applicable, and do not make international travel plans without confirming your status with an attorney. Employers sponsoring foreign workers should build additional slack, potentially several months, into global mobility timelines. If an employment authorization document is expiring imminently, legal counsel may be able to seek emergency relief through the courts. The fingerprint re-vetting freeze is one of the most operationally significant USCIS policy shifts in years, and its full impact on backlogs will not be clear until the agency completes the re-vetting process.
USCIS Now Requires In-Person Attorney Presence at Certain Asylum Interviews.
A long-standing accommodation that allowed immigration attorneys to represent clients by telephone at USCIS interviews came to an end on May 18, 2026. Under a new USCIS policy, attorneys and accredited representatives are no longer permitted to participate remotely in interviews conducted at USCIS field offices, or in affirmative asylum and Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) 203 interviews conducted at asylum offices; except in very narrow, headquarters-approved circumstances. The change, announced by USCIS in advance of its May 18 effective date, marks a significant procedural shift that affects green card, naturalization, and asylum applicants alike.
The phone-participation option had been widely used for years, particularly in cases where an attorney’s office was located far from the USCIS office where an interview was scheduled, or where scheduling conflicts made physical presence impractical. Under the old practice, a brief document-focused interview could proceed smoothly with legal representation by phone, and adjudicators had discretion to allow it in a wide range of situations. That discretion is now gone for most interview types. The categories most commonly affected include marriage-based green card interviews on Form I-485, naturalization interviews on Form N-400, joint and waiver interviews on Form I-751 to remove conditions on residence, and affirmative asylum interviews on Form I-589. If an attorney cannot be physically present, applicants face a difficult choice: proceed without legal representation in the room, sign a waiver, or accept rescheduling with the risk that a failed appearance at an asylum interview could be treated as a no-show and result in referral to immigration court.
The practical implications are especially acute for asylum seekers and applicants in rural or underserved areas where immigration attorneys are scarce and distances to USCIS offices are substantial. For someone represented by an attorney in a major city whose nearest USCIS asylum office is hundreds of miles away, the new requirement introduces significant financial burden: travel costs, lost work time, and the need for attorneys to dedicate full days to single interviews rather than managing multiple cases remotely. Immigration advocates have raised concerns that the policy will effectively reduce access to representation for the most vulnerable applicants, since some will be unable to afford an attorney who can physically travel to distant offices, and may proceed into consequential interviews without counsel.
Applicants with upcoming USCIS interviews, especially those scheduled on or after May 18, 2026, should immediately confirm with their attorneys that in-person attendance is confirmed and feasible. If a current attorney cannot travel to the interview location, applicants should explore retaining local counsel in the city where the USCIS office is located, or discuss with their attorney whether rescheduling is strategically appropriate. It is also worth reviewing the interview notice carefully, as some interview types may fall outside the scope of the new policy. Attorneys not able to attend should not assume a phone exception will be granted on the day; the safer assumption, per guidance from multiple immigration law firms, is that no exception will be made unless formally approved in advance.
US Green Card Applicants Will Now Have to Return to Home Countries to Apply, DHS Says
In what may be the most consequential shift to the legal immigration system announced in May 2026, the Trump administration revealed on May 22 that people with temporary visas seeking to adjust their immigration status and obtain green cards must now return to their home countries to apply through consular processing, ending a decades-old practice that allowed many visa holders to change status without leaving the United States. The announcement came from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, whose spokesperson stated plainly: ‘From now on, an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances.’ USCIS framed the change as a return to the statutory intent of the immigration system, which it said was never designed to allow temporary visits to function as the first step in the green card process.
The scale of the affected population is enormous. Former USCIS official Doug Rand noted that in a typical year, approximately one million people apply for green cards, and roughly half of those apply from within the United States while living here, a process known as adjustment of status. Under the new policy, those applicants, including students on F-1 visas, temporary workers on H-1B and other employment visas, and tourists, would generally be required to leave the US and apply at a US consulate or embassy in their home country. USCIS indicated that people providing an ‘economic benefit’ or demonstrating a ‘national interest’ connection could potentially qualify for an exception, but the agency did not define those terms with specificity, leaving significant uncertainty about who will actually be eligible to remain in the US during their application.
The reaction from immigration experts, lawmakers, and advocacy groups was swift and sharply critical. The Cato Institute’s director of immigration studies called the policy ‘illogical,’ warning of cascading impacts across industries that depend on high-skilled foreign workers. Democratic lawmakers called it an attack on legal immigration, with some noting that the policy would harm researchers, doctors, and engineers whom US companies and institutions rely on. A particular concern raised by attorneys is that for applicants from countries subject to Trump’s travel ban or facing significant consular backlogs, returning home to apply could mean being barred from re-entry or waiting years in a country they may have left long ago. USCIS did not specify when the policy would take effect for pending applications, nor whether individuals already mid-process would be required to restart abroad.
For skilled professionals currently in the United States on temporary visas who are considering or actively pursuing green cards, this development demands immediate attention. The window for filing an adjustment of status application from within the United States may be narrowing. Applicants should consult with an immigration attorney as soon as possible to assess whether they can file before any implementing guidance or effective date is announced, and to understand whether any exception category might apply to their situation. Professionals in fields of national importance, including technology, healthcare, scientific research, and finance, may have stronger arguments for exception treatment, particularly if they are pursuing the EB-2 NIW or EB-1A pathways. The policy’s full contours remain unsettled, but the direction of travel is clear: the administration is systematically restricting the pathways available to those seeking to build a permanent life in the United States.
Trump Administration ‘Drawing Up Plans’ to Stop Processing International Flights in Sanctuary Cities
The final week of May 2026 brought what may be the boldest , and most disruptive, immigration-adjacent proposal yet from the Trump administration. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin confirmed in a Fox News interview on May 26 that the administration is ‘currently drawing up plans’ to halt the processing of international travelers and cargo at major US airports located in so-called sanctuary cities: jurisdictions that have declined to cooperate fully with federal immigration enforcement. Mullin framed the move as a logical consequence of the tension between sanctuary policies and federal services, asking rhetorically: ‘They don’t want us to enforce immigration, but they want us to process immigration at their facilities? Nothing about that makes sense to me.’ The secretary emphasized that no final decision had been made and that the plans had not yet been ‘initiated.’
The potential fallout from such a move would extend far beyond immigration enforcement. The airports targeted by the proposal include some of the busiest international gateways in the United States including JFK, Los Angeles International, Newark Liberty, Chicago O’Hare, and San Francisco International, collectively handling tens of millions of international arrivals and billions of dollars in cargo annually. The timing of the threat is particularly pointed: the FIFA World Cup begins in June 2026, with millions of international visitors expected to arrive in the United States, including at airports in several sanctuary cities that are hosting matches. Halting Customs and Border Protection processing at those airports would not merely inconvenience travelers; it would effectively shut down international arrivals at some of the country’s most critical transportation hubs.
Critics from both parties and across the political spectrum have questioned the legal basis and practical wisdom of the plan. Legal scholars note that the federal government’s authority to selectively withdraw customs processing from specific airports as a political lever against local governments has never been tested and would almost certainly face immediate legal challenge. Business groups, airline executives, and tourism industry leaders have raised alarms about the economic damage such a move would cause, not only to the targeted cities but to international trade and the broader US economy. The Department of Justice had previously published a list of sanctuary cities and states, which includes Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Newark, Seattle, and San Francisco, jurisdictions that are home to major international airports and significant immigrant communities.
For international travelers, visa holders, and immigration applicants, this development is a signal of how broadly the administration is willing to use federal authority to pursue its immigration agenda. Even if the sanctuary city airport plan never moves beyond the planning stage, it reflects a willingness to use the infrastructure of international travel as a bargaining chip in the political fight over local immigration cooperation. For skilled professionals from abroad planning to travel to or from the United States, or awaiting visa processing at US consulates, the message is to monitor developments closely and build contingency plans into any international travel scheduled for the coming months. AgoraVisa will continue to track this story as it develops.
Stay informed. Stay prepared.
AgoraVisa helps skilled professionals from Africa and Southeast Asia navigate the US immigration system: O-1A, O-1B, EB-1A, and EB-2 NIW. If this month’s changes have you rethinking your path, we can help you find one.
Begin your free consultation at agoravisa.com
This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration laws and policies change frequently. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
Explore Our Immigration Services
EB-1A Green Card →
A permanent residency path for those with extraordinary ability — no employer sponsor needed.
EB-3 Skilled Worker Visa →
Employer-sponsored green card for skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.
O-1 Extraordinary Ability Visa →
For individuals with extraordinary ability in sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics.
