Shutdown Showdown: La amenaza que se cierne sobre los servicios de inmigración en medio de las disputas fiscales

Flavia Santos • November 30, 2023

Click here to read this article in English

Cada año, al comenzar el nuevo año fiscal federal, el Congreso de los Estados Unidos se enfrenta a la tarea fundamental de llegar a un consenso sobre la financiación del gobierno federal. Si el Congreso no logra llegar a un acuerdo y aprobar el proyecto de ley de asignaciones necesarias, existe la posibilidad de que se produzca un cierre parcial del gobierno.

Las consecuencias de dicho cierre sólo serían uniformes en algunas agencias gubernamentales si se produjera el 1 de octubre de 2023. El alcance del impacto fluctuaría, en particular para las agencias que se ocupan de asuntos relacionados con la inmigración, dependiendo de varios factores, incluida su capacidad para generar tasas y otras consideraciones.

A pesar de la incertidumbre, se prevé que ciertas funciones esenciales del gobierno persistirían, asegurando que los servicios básicos y las responsabilidades se sigan cumpliendo, incluso en el caso de un estancamiento de la financiación del gobierno. Aunque un cierre del gobierno no es definitivo, si ocurre, podemos anticipar retrasos en las prestaciones de inmigración. Teniendo en cuenta anteriores cierres, es probable que los servicios de inmigración se vean interrumpidos.

El Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos (USCIS) 

El Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de EE.UU. (USCIS) funciona principalmente con tasas y no con fondos públicos. Las oficinas del USCIS han permanecido normalmente abiertas en anteriores cierres, pero debemos prever una ralentización de las operaciones y cuellos de botella en la tramitación.

Esta ralentización se produce debido a la reducción de los niveles de personal, principalmente cuando los adjudicadores de USCIS dependen de otras funciones del gobierno para tomar decisiones. Aunque USCIS no depende en gran medida de la financiación del gobierno, la interconexión de varios organismos puede afectar indirectamente a su eficiencia durante los cierres del gobierno, dando lugar a posibles retrasos en los servicios relacionados con la inmigración y las decisiones.


Hablando del impacto directo de la inmigración en el gobierno federal, cabe destacar la estructura de financiación y los efectos potenciales de los cierres del gobierno en agencias específicas del gobierno de EE.UU. y sus funciones relacionadas con la inmigración.

Departamento de Estado (DOS)

El Departamento de Estado de EE.UU., que desempeña un papel fundamental en la gestión de las solicitudes de visado y los servicios a los ciudadanos estadounidenses, depende de la financiación procedente de las tasas de solicitud de visado y otros cargos relacionados. Este modelo de financiación ha permitido históricamente al departamento mantener servicios esenciales, incluida la tramitación de visados para ciudadanos e inmigrantes.

Sin embargo, en caso de un cierre prolongado del Gobierno, los servicios no urgentes podrían verse afectados, lo que posiblemente provocaría la suspensión de diversas funciones relacionadas con los visados. Esto se manifestaría como la no emisión de visados de negocios y de empleo y posibles cancelaciones o reprogramaciones de citas pendientes de solicitud de visado.

Departamento de Trabajo (DOL)

Por otra parte, el Departamento de Trabajo de EE.UU. (DOL) se enfrenta a retos más importantes durante los cierres gubernamentales. A diferencia de los organismos que generan ingresos, el DOL depende en gran medida de la financiación pública. En consecuencia, los anteriores cierres gubernamentales han afectado significativamente a las funciones del DOL relacionadas con la inmigración.

Esta interrupción ha sido particularmente evidente en las solicitudes de condición laboral (LCA), las solicitudes de certificación laboral PERM y las solicitudes de salario prevaleciente. Durante los cierres, estas funciones se suspendieron por lo general, acumulando atrasos y tiempos de procesamiento prolongados, incluso después de que las operaciones del gobierno se reanudaron.

Estos distintos modelos de financiación y las tendencias históricas ponen de relieve las diferentes vulnerabilidades de las agencias en relación con los servicios de inmigración durante los cierres del gobierno. Subraya la importancia de las consideraciones presupuestarias y la planificación de contingencias para garantizar la continuidad de las funciones esenciales de inmigración, en particular cuando los modelos de financiación basados en tasas pueden proporcionar cierta resistencia, pero no son inmunes a las interrupciones causadas por los cierres prolongados del gobierno.

La incapacidad para tramitar los LCA influiría directamente en la capacidad de los empleadores para tramitar las peticiones H-1B, H-1B1 y E-3. Además, si se produce un cierre del gobierno, es muy probable que E-Verify, el sistema que los empleadores utilizan para confirmar la elegibilidad de empleo, no esté operativo.

En consecuencia, los empleadores podrían iniciar, abordar o cumplir los plazos necesarios dentro del sistema una vez que se restablezca tras la reanudación de las operaciones del gobierno. Es esencial subrayar que los empleadores seguirán estando obligados a realizar las verificaciones I-9 sin exenciones ni excepciones, incluso sin la funcionalidad de E-Verify.

En resumen, un cierre del gobierno de EE.UU. puede prolongar la duración de la tramitación de diversos asuntos relacionados con la inmigración. Las principales repercusiones, en particular para los empleadores estadounidenses que contratan a trabajadores extranjeros, abarcan:

  • La incapacidad de los empleadores de conseguir LCA aprobadas para peticiones H-1B, H-1B1 y E-3.


  • La incapacidad del Departamento de Trabajo para tramitar las solicitudes de certificación laboral PERM y determinar los salarios vigentes.

  • El posible obstáculo para las personas que deseen solicitar visados de negocios y de empleo para entrar en Estados Unidos.


Como se mencionó anteriormente, un cierre no es el escenario más probable, pero teniendo en cuenta la situación actual con las personas migrantes, es probable que sea una opción que se ejecute. Seremos los primeros en informarles de cualquier novedad que se produzca en esta situación.

Este blog no pretende ser asesoramiento jurídico y nada de lo aquí expuesto debe interpretarse como el establecimiento de una relación abogado-cliente. Por favor, programe una consulta con un abogado de inmigración antes de actuar sobre cualquier información leída aquí.

Flavia Lloyd

By Juliana LaMendola April 25, 2025
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.
By Angelica Rice April 17, 2025
On March 31, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) implemented a policy update that limits gender marker selections on all immigration forms and systems to two biological sexes: male and female. This change eliminates the option for applicants to select a non-binary or “X” gender marker—an option that had previously been permitted on some forms. While USCIS emphasizes that this update does not change who qualifies for immigration benefits, it may significantly impact how certain applications—particularly asylum claims based on gender identity-related persecution—are understood and evaluated. What Has Changed? Under the revised policy, applicants may now only choose “Male” or “Female” when completing USCIS forms. The ability to select a non-binary or third-gender option is no longer available. Applicants may still request to change their gender marker with USCIS, but only within the male/female binary. Supporting documentation, such as medical or legal records, is not required to make the change. This means that transgender individuals can still align their gender marker with their identity—if it falls within the two binary categories—but non-binary individuals are no longer represented. The change follows guidance issued by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which called for greater consistency in the collection of sex and gender data across federal agencies. Impact on Asylum Applicants This policy update is especially important for individuals applying for asylum based on persecution related to their gender identity. Under U.S. immigration law, asylum is available to people who have suffered persecution—or fear future persecution—based on their membership in a “particular social group.” This includes people targeted for being transgender, gender non-conforming, or otherwise not aligning with socially expected gender roles in their home country. Although the legal standard for asylum remains unchanged, the removal of the non-binary gender marker could make it harder for some applicants to clearly present and document their identity. In asylum cases, credibility and clarity are crucial. The ability to accurately reflect one’s gender identity on official forms can play an important role in establishing the foundation of a persecution claim. Now, applicants who identify as non-binary or outside the traditional male/female categories may be forced to select a gender that does not align with their lived experience. This could lead to confusion in their case file or require additional explanation during interviews or hearings. This policy could weaken the strength of some asylum claims—not because the underlying facts have changed, but because the official forms now fail to reflect the applicant’s true identity. For example: A non-binary person applying for asylum after being targeted in their home country may now have to select “Male” or “Female” on their asylum application, despite not identifying as either. This mismatch may lead adjudicators to question the applicant’s identity, possibly weakening the strength of the claim or requiring added clarification and documentation. In defensive asylum cases—where applicants are in removal proceedings—such inconsistencies could create unnecessary hurdles and complicate the evidentiary presentation. What Can Applicants Do? Despite the change, individuals can still pursue asylum based on gender identity. The underlying eligibility criteria remain the same. However, applicants should be prepared to clearly explain any differences between their stated identity and the gender marker required on USCIS forms. Applicants are encouraged to: Include a personal declaration explaining their gender identity in detail and how it relates to their fear of persecution. Provide evidence such as affidavits, country condition reports, or expert testimony that supports the claim. Work with an experienced immigration attorney who can help present the claim effectively and prepare for any questions that might arise from the new form limitations. The new USCIS policy on gender markers may seem like a technical update, but for asylum seekers fleeing gender-based persecution, it has real implications. While individuals are still legally eligible to seek protection, the limitation to binary gender options could make it more difficult to fully and clearly present their case.  If you or someone you know is facing immigration challenges related to gender identity—or is concerned about how this policy may impact an asylum claim—please contact Santos Lloyd Law Firm to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced immigration attorneys. We’re here to help ensure your voice is heard and your case is handled with the care and expertise it deserves.
By Santos Lloyd Law Team April 10, 2025
In 2025, the immigration landscape continues to shift under the weight of national security concerns, ushered in by Executive Order “ Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. ” This directive tasks federal agencies—including the U.S. Department of State—with implementing enhanced screening and vetting protocols for all foreign nationals seeking visas or other immigration benefits. The result? A dramatically intensified vetting process, along with mounting concerns from immigrants, attorneys, and civil liberties advocates alike. Traditionally, airport security focused on verifying travel documents and screening for prohibited items, while consular officers assessed the legitimacy of visa petitions and the admissibility of applicants. Extreme vetting, however, represents a significant shift toward a far more invasive and comprehensive investigative process. It now includes detailed background checks, biometric verification, digital forensics, and expansive scrutiny of an applicant’s online presence and criminal or financial records. Since President Trump’s second term began in January 2025, the implementation of extreme vetting has expanded rapidly. Today, border screenings go far beyond routine document checks, encompassing a full-scale evaluation of a traveler’s digital life. This pivot reflects the administration’s intensified focus on national security, but it has also triggered urgent discussions about privacy, due process, and the fairness of modern immigration enforcement. At U.S. ports of entry—especially airports—noncitizens are now subject to rigorous and invasive procedures, including: Inspection of cell phones, laptops, and other devices (including deleted content) Review of social media activity on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) Biometric scanning, including fingerprinting and facial recognition These measures are no longer confined to travelers from high-risk countries. In practice, extreme vetting applies broadly across all nationalities, and increasingly affects lawful permanent residents as well. For noncitizens, this new landscape introduces a heightened level of uncertainty and vulnerability. Delays at U.S. consulates for visa issuance or renewal are becoming routine. Travelers must now be acutely aware of these changes, and those attending consular interviews or seeking visa renewals should be prepared to provide additional documentation verifying their maintenance of status, compliance with visa conditions, and the bona fide nature of their visa applications. It is critical to organize supporting materials in advance and be ready to answer questions about employment, education, travel history, and online activity. As the U.S. government continues to expand its use of data-driven risk assessment tools, travelers must adapt to a new normal, one where preparation is essential to navigating the immigration system without disruption.
Show More