Eu posso ser detido e deportado, mesmo se tiver um visto válido?
Angelica Rice • January 26, 2023
Infelizmente a resposta mais simples para essa pergunta é sim, e acontece toda hora.
A maioria das pessoas pensam que ter um visto válido as torna imunes aos problemas de imigração e, na maioria das vezes, é verdade. No entanto, existem certas circunstâncias em que mesmo tendo um visto válido não é suficiente para impedir que alguém seja mandado de volta ao seu país de origem.
O que a maioria das pessoas não sabe, que mesmo que você tenha um visto válido, se não o usar da maneira correta, poderá sofrer consequências imigratórias. Por exemplo: você é cidadão das Bahamas, tem um visto de turista válido, mas vem para os Estados Unidos e não passa pela alfândega corretamente, você corre o risco de ser detido pela Fiscalização Imigratória e Alfandegária americana (ICE) e enviado de volta para as Bahamas. Como o cidadão das Bahamas não entrou em um porto de entrada válido e passou pela alfândega adequadamente, o ICE pode prendê-lo, detê-lo e enviá-lo de volta às Bahamas. Se isso acontecer, o cidadão das Bahamas, não só perderá o visto, mas terá a proibição de retornar aos Estados Unidos por cinco (5) anos.
Para muitos de nós, isso parece injusto. “Ele tem um visto válido!” as pessoas exclamariam. Existe alguma maneira de evitar esse cenário e salvá-lo dessas graves consequências imigratórias?
Dependendo da situação, pode haver uma maneira de impedir que a deportação aconteça. Uma possibilidade é que o cidadão portador do visto possa mostrar seus documentos, afirmar sua condição e solicitar que o oficial autorize “retirar seu pedido de entrada”. Mesmo que a pessoa não tenha entrado por uma porta de entrada válida, pela natureza de ter um visto, ela foi presumidamente “admitida” nos Estados Unidos. Se o oficial permitir que ele retire essa “entrada” voluntariamente, o cidadão pode simplesmente retornar ao seu país sem consequências e depois reentrar adequadamente, usando seu visto. No entanto, se você encontrar um oficial que não seja tão compreensivo, a situação se torna mais difícil de resolver. Além disso, quando um cidadão portador de visto é colocado em um processo de remoção acelerada (um processo pelo qual oficiais de imigração de baixo nível podem deportar rapidamente certos não cidadãos, que não têm documentos ou cometeram fraude ou falsidade ideológica), as coisas se tornam mais complicadas e ajuda legal é necessária/recomendada.
Este blog não se destina a ser um aconselhamento jurídico e nada aqui deve ser interpretado como estabelecimento de uma relação cliente-advogado. Por favor, agende uma consulta com um advogado de imigração, antes de agir baseado em qualquer informação lida neste blog.
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
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.
