2026 Visa Freeze and Travel Bans
Juliana LaMendola • March 13, 2026
On January 14, 2026, the Trump administration announced a freeze on immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries. The administration states that this “visa freeze” is intended to review security protocols, “reduce risks,” and control immigration flows. However, the immediate reality is that this change in policy has temporarily suspended visa processing and restricted travel for applicants from numerous countries across the globe. While the legal landscape surrounding these suspensions is highly fluid and subject to change, it is important to consider how this “visa freeze” might impact your current status or immigration plans.
The scope of the restrictions varies drastically depending on your country of origin and specific visa category. Most notably, a nationality-based travel ban restricts visa issuance for 19 countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Beyond this targeted ban, a broader freeze affects applicants from a designated list of up to 75 countries, leading to indefinite delays for many visa petitions. However, it is important to note that immigrant visa applications first need to be processed through USCIS, which has not paused processing applications from the 75 countries. Thus, it is important to contact an attorney to understand at what point in the process this visa freeze may affect your case.
While Brazil is included in the list of 75 countries, at the time of this publication, the freeze does not include non-immigrant visas for Brazil. Non-immigrant visas are granted to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a temporary basis for specific purposes, such as tourism, studying, or temporary work. This means that Brazilian applicants can still safely pursue non-immigrant employment options, such as O visas for individuals with extraordinary ability or P visas for internationally recognized athletes, without being subjected to the current travel bans or suspensions.
This alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. There are many changes and uncertainties, so please consult with a qualified attorney at Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C. to understand how these evolving policies might affect your specific case
This blog is not intended to be legal advice and nothing here should be construed as establishing an attorney client relationship. Please schedule a consultation with an immigration attorney before acting on any information read here.
Juliana LaMendola
Similar Posts
When applying for a green card or seeking admission into the United States, one of the legal hurdles many applicants may face is the public charge ground of inadmissibility. This test evaluates whether someone is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for support. But what exactly does that mean—and what types of public benefits can trigger this issue? In this article, we’ll break down what “public charge” really means, who is affected, what types of public benefits are considered, and what immigrants should be mindful of when making decisions about public programs like Medi-Cal and Medicaid. What Is the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility? The public charge rule applies to individuals applying for a visa, green card (adjustment of status), or entry into the U.S., unless they fall into an exempt category. Under this rule, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must determine whether the applicant is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. This typically refers to receiving: Public cash assistance for income maintenance (such as SSI or TANF), or Long-term institutional care at government expense. This determination is based on the "totality of circumstances," including age, health, financial resources, education, skills, and whether a sponsor has submitted a valid Affidavit of Support. Who Is Exempt from the Public Charge Rule? Many categories of immigrants are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. These include: Asylees and refugees Special immigrant juveniles Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners T and U visa applicants Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants Importantly, even if someone later adjusts status through a different pathway that is subject to public charge, any benefits they received while in an exempt category will not be held against them. What Public Benefits Are Not Considered in the Public Charge Test? It is a common and harmful myth that using any public benefit will jeopardize your immigration status. In fact, most non-cash benefits do not count against you in a public charge determination. According to USCIS and DHS guidance, the following types of assistance (current as of July 1, 2025) are not considered: Health-Related Benefits Medi-Cal/Medicaid, except for long-term institutional care Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Health insurance through the ACA Marketplace, including subsidies COVID-19 testing, vaccines, and treatment Community health services, crisis counseling, and short-term shelters Food and Nutrition SNAP (Food Stamps) WIC School meal programs Food banks and emergency food assistance Housing and Energy Emergency shelter Rental assistance (e.g., McKinney-Vento programs) Energy assistance (e.g., LIHEAP) Education and Childcare Public schooling Head Start Childcare subsidies (e.g., CCDF) Educational grants and scholarships Federal Cash and Tax Benefits Earned income tax credit (EITC) Child Tax Credit (CTC) Stimulus checks Unemployment insurance Social Security and veteran’s benefits Disaster and pandemic-related cash aid In short, just because a benefit is public or government-funded doesn’t automatically make it count against you. A Word of Caution About Medi-Cal and Medicaid, in Particular As of today (07/01/2025), standard use of Medi-Cal (California’s version of Medicaid) or Medicaid for most health-related services is not considered in a public charge determination. This includes preventative care, emergency services, pregnancy-related services, and short-term care. However, if Medicaid is used for long-term institutionalization, such as in a nursing home or psychiatric facility, that does count under the public charge test. Despite current guidance, we are seeing political shifts and changes in tone from the current administration that suggest public charge policies may become more restrictive in the future. This includes renewed interest in expanding the types of public benefits that may be considered, particularly around medical assistance. For that reason, we generally recommend that individuals who are applying for adjustment of status, or who may be subject to the public charge ground in the future, avoid enrolling in Medi-Cal or Medicaid at this time, unless absolutely necessary. Final Thoughts Immigration law is complex, and the rules surrounding public charge can feel confusing or even frightening. But it’s important to understand that using most public benefits—especially for food, education, and healthcare—will not automatically jeopardize your green card or visa application. Still, because policy can change quickly, we urge individuals to consult with an immigration attorney before applying for any public assistance—especially healthcare programs like Medi-Cal or Medicaid. If you have questions or concerns about how public benefits might impact your immigration case, our office is here to help. We are committed to providing up-to-date, personalized guidance to keep your immigration journey on track. Disclaimer The information provided herein is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every immigration case is unique, and the application of the public charge rule may vary depending on your specific situation. If you believe this topic may apply to you or you need individualized legal guidance, we encourage you to contact one of our highly-qualified legal professionals for a consultation and assistance tailored to your circumstances. Resources: USCIS Public Charge Resources ILRC Medi-Cal and Public Charge Alert (2024) California Medi-Cal Immigrant Eligibility FAQ
In January 2025, the U.S. Congress passed the Laken Riley Act , marking a significant shift in immigration enforcement policy. The Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain certain non-U.S. nationals who have been arrested for theft-related offenses such as burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. Under this Act, the Department of Homeland Security must detain an individual who: (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The Act also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement. It authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a: Decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody; Failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews; Failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country; Violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or Failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States. The Act's stringent detention requirements may lead to increased fear and uncertainty within immigrant communities. Individuals who are merely accused of certain crimes could face mandatory detention. The Act may also affect legal immigration processes. Increased detention and deportation efforts could strain resources, potentially leading to delays in processing visas and asylum applications. Given the evolving legal landscape: Stay Informed and/or Seek Legal Counsel - Consult with your immigration attorney to understand how new laws and policies may affect your situation and if you or someone you know is facing immigration-related legal issues. Know Your Rights - Familiarize yourself with your legal rights, especially concerning interactions with law enforcement and immigration authorities. Community Engagement - Participate in community organizations that provide support and resources for immigrants, fostering a network of assistance and advocacy. If you have any questions or would like to consult with an experienced immigration attorney, contact our office to schedule a consultation.
In a renewed wave of enforcement, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has started sending formal alerts to certain F-1 students participating in Optional Practical Training (OPT), flagging that their records reflect over 90 days without any reported employment. These students have been advised to update their employment status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) within 15 days. Failure to take timely corrective action may lead to the termination of the student's SEVIS record, effectively marking them as out of status, and may ultimately trigger removal proceedings. The notices are intended as a warning that students who do not comply with OPT reporting obligations are at risk of serious immigration consequences. Understanding OPT and Its Unemployment Limits Optional Practical Training (commonly referred to as “OPT”) is a work authorization benefit that allows eligible F-1 international students to gain hands-on experience in their field of study. Students may apply for pre-completion OPT (while still in school) or post-completion OPT (after graduation), typically for up to 12 months. Those with degrees in qualifying STEM fields may apply for an additional 24-month STEM OPT extension, giving them a total of 36 months of work authorization in the U.S. To maintain valid F-1 status while on OPT, students must remain actively employed in a position related to their field of study. The amount of time a student may remain in the United States while on OPT without being properly employed is capped at: 90 days during the standard 12-month post-completion OPT, and 150 days for those on the STEM OPT extension, which includes any days of unemployment accrued during the initial OPT period. These unemployment limits are cumulative and enforced strictly through SEVIS monitoring. What Should F-1 Students Do? If you are an F-1 student on OPT or STEM OPT and receive a warning or are unsure about your compliance status, act quickly: Contact your Designated School Official (DSO) immediately to review and, if necessary, update your SEVIS record. Ensure all employment is properly documented and reported through your school’s international office. Do not ignore warning notices, as failure to respond may lead to SEVIS termination and potentially the initiation of removal proceedings. It is also advisable to consult with a qualified immigration attorney to explore available options and understand how enforcement actions may affect your status or future immigration plans. If you received a notice or have questions about your F-1 status, our attorneys are here to help you take the right steps to protect your future in the United States. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.
In recent months, the U.S. government has intensified its vetting procedures for individuals seeking entry into the United States, whether through visa applications abroad or inspection at ports of entry. This shift, prioritized by the current administration, is having a noticeable impact on immigrants, visa holders, and even lawful permanent residents (LPRs). At U.S. consulates worldwide, applicants are experiencing increased delays , often being placed into administrative processing under Section 221(g) or referred for Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) , which can significantly prolong visa issuance. Officers are now engaging in deeper reviews of applicants' backgrounds, including their t ravel histories, social media accounts, and foreign ties . This scrutiny applies to a wide range of visa categories, from visitor visas to employment-based petitions. Importantly, officers are exercising broader discretion when deciding who qualifies for a visa, making the process more unpredictable, even for applicants with strong cases. This enhanced vetting does not end at the consulate. Individuals entering the U.S. — even those with valid visas or green cards — are increasingly subject to prolonged secondary inspections by Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Officers may ask detailed questions about prior immigration history, travel patterns, and social media activity. In some cases, travelers are asked to provide access to their electronic devices for further inspection. There are also growing reports of travelers being referred to deferred inspection or even issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) for removal proceedings, despite previously lawful entries. While some of these practices have existed in the past, the current administration has formalized and expanded them. Experts warn that additional travel restrictions or targeted bans could also emerge as part of the administration’s enforcement priorities. For employment-based applicants, these delays and complications can severely impact U.S. businesses and foreign nationals who contribute critical skills to the U.S. economy. It is more important than ever to be well-prepared before attending a visa interview or traveling internationally. Understanding your rights and preparing thoroughly can help you navigate this uncertain landscape. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C. , our immigration attorneys are ready to guide you through this evolving process and ensure you are informed, supported, and protected. Please contact us if you have questions or need assistance.
Recent data in 2026 shows a sharp increase in Requests for Evidence across employment-based visa categories such as EB-1, EB-2 NIW, O, and H-1B. Requests for Evidence (RFEs) are no longer reserved for borderline cases; even robust petitions for high-level talent are facing unprecedented scrutiny. The expansion of the USCIS Vetting Center means automated tools are cross-referencing every petition, triggering RFEs for even the smallest inconsistencies. For EB-2 NIW petitions, adjudicators are increasingly questioning the "National Importance" of a candidate’s endeavor. Even for those with impressive credentials, USCIS now demands evidence of how their work specifically benefits the U.S. on a prospective basis. For O-1A and O-1B visas, officers are applying narrower interpretations of "distinction" and "extraordinary ability," often mischaracterizing evidence already present in the record. Additionally, a troubling 2026 trend is the correlation between Premium Processing and RFEs . For discretionary categories like EB-1A and EB-2 NIW, Premium Processing has increasingly become a "fast track" to a poorly reasoned RFE. Reports indicate that adjudicators, pressured by 15-business-day timelines, may be relying on AI-assisted vetting tools that trigger automated RFEs with general and boilerplate language, rather than a thorough review and analysis of supporting documents and evidence filed. With USCIS employing more rigorous AI-driven vetting and a narrower interpretation of visa criteria, the margin for error has disappeared . As such, ensure you consult with an experienced immigration attorney before filing a petition. ' If you have any questions, please schedule a consultation with one of our experienced attorneys, and we will be more than happy to assist you.
In recent weeks, the U.S. government has moved to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for multiple countries, sparking a wave of last-minute litigation and creating significant uncertainty for beneficiaries. This shift is having a profound impact on those who rely on TPS for lawful presence and work authorization in the United States. Across the country, federal courts have intervened to pause or block scheduled TPS terminations for several countries, including Burma (Myanmar), Ethiopia, Haiti, South Sudan, and Syria. In response to these court orders, USCIS has updated its webpages to indicate that TPS status and related Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) are extended for these populations. However, USCIS is intentionally not providing specific new end dates for EAD validity while the litigation remains in flux. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has prominently noted that it "vehemently disagrees" with these court orders and is actively working with the Department of Justice on next steps. This legal landscape remains highly unpredictable and varies drastically depending on the country of origin. For example, on February 9, 2026, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay allowing the government to proceed with the termination of TPS for Nicaragua, Honduras, and Nepal while the underlying legal challenges continue. Because of this ruling, the automatic extension of work authorization for these individuals has ended, and employers are now required to reverify the work authorization of affected employees, who must present alternative valid documentation to continue their employment. These rapid changes and the lack of clear end dates are causing complications beyond the workplace. Because driver's licenses often track the length of an individual's authorized stay, many DMVs are currently declining to issue or renew driver's licenses for impacted TPS populations. For employers, managing internal communications, avoiding onboarding errors, and navigating Form I-9 compliance has become increasingly complex. It is more important than ever to be well-prepared and proactive in monitoring these rapid changes. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C., our immigration attorneys are ready to guide you through this evolving process and ensure you are informed, and supported. Please contact us if you have questions or need assistance.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced a major change to the H-1B cap selection process. Under a final rule issued on December 29, 2025, USCIS will replace the long-standing random H-1B lottery with a wage-weighted selection system that favors higher-paid and more complex positions. The rule is scheduled to take effect on February 27, 2026 , just ahead of the fiscal year 2027 H-1B cap registration season, unless delayed by legal challenges. If implemented, USCIS is expected to release additional guidance explaining how employers must submit registrations under the revised process. This change marks one of the most significant reforms to the H-1B program in recent years. Up until 2025, all registrations were treated equally once the annual cap was reached. Under the new system, selection odds will be tied to wage levels based on the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics data. All H-1B registrations will still be placed into a single selection pool, but registrations tied to higher wage levels will receive multiple entries into that pool, increasing their likelihood of selection. Lower wage levels will receive fewer entries, making selection less likely but not impossible. H-1B wage levels are not determined solely by salary. Each wage level reflects the complexity of the job, the level of responsibility involved, and the education and experience required . Entry-level positions involving routine duties and close supervision are generally classified at the lowest wage level, while positions requiring independent judgment, advanced skills, and significant responsibility fall into higher wage levels. The highest wage level is reserved for roles that involve expert knowledge, strategic decision-making, and substantial leadership or technical authority. USCIS is expected to closely scrutinize selected petitions to ensure that the wage level claimed during registration is supported by the job duties and salary offered in the petition. Any discrepancies between the registration and the petition may result in requests for evidence, denials, or enforcement action. With the elimination of the purely random lottery, employers should begin preparing early by carefully evaluating job descriptions, wage levels, and overall H-1B strategy. Accurate classification and thoughtful planning will be essential under this new wage-based selection system. If you are an employer considering H-1B sponsorship, or a foreign professional wondering whether your position may qualify under the new wage-based system, consulting with experienced immigration counsel is more important than ever. Santos Lloyd Law is actively advising clients on H-1B cap registrations and strategy under the new rules. To discuss your options or determine whether you may qualify, contact our office to schedule a consultation.
