• Mon - Fri 9.00 - 19.00
Open

Tag Archives: US immigration

Tamara's World  /  Blog  /  US immigration
15 Sep 2026
Campus international student centre illustrating the duration of status injunction

The Student Visa Rule Due Today Just Got Frozen by a Judge

Categories Immigration, Study Abroad

A federal judge has frozen the rule that was due to end duration of status today. The
duration of status injunction came from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on 14 September 2026. It postpones the effective date of a Department of Homeland Security
final rule. That rule would have replaced open-ended admission with a fixed term for F-1 students, J-1
exchange visitors and I media representatives. DHS published it on 17 July. It was set to bite on 15
September. For now, it does not.

Inside this story

What the duration of status injunction actually does

Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted a nationwide preliminary injunction. The order postpones the rule’s
effective date while the case proceeds. It does not strike the rule down. That distinction matters. DHS can
still defend the rule, and an appeal court could narrow or lift the order.

The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that the rule breached the Administrative
Procedure Act. That statute governs how federal agencies write rules. Courts use it to test whether an
agency explained itself and followed the required process.

The plaintiffs are a coalition rather than a single school. They include NAFSA: Association of
International Educators, the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, and the Association
of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts. Three unions joined them: the American Federation
of Teachers with its Graduate Labor Organization local, the United Auto Workers with UAW Local 2322, and the
NewsGuild-CWA. The union presence reflects how many affected people work as teaching and research staff.

Federal courthouse in Boston where the duration of status injunction was issued
The Boston federal courthouse, where the order postponing the DHS rule was issued on 14 September 2026.

What the blocked rule would have changed

The July rule rewrote a system that has run since 1978. Under duration of status, an F-1 student stays
lawfully while they make progress in their programme. There is no end date stamped on the admission record.
The rule would have replaced that with a date certain.

The headline change was a cap. New admissions would run for the length of the programme or four years,
whichever was shorter. Anyone needing longer would file an extension of stay with U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services and show a compelling reason. A pending extension would carry an automatic 240-day
authorisation.

The grace period after finishing a programme would have dropped from 60 days to 30 for F visa holders.
Students who completed one level could move up to a higher degree, but not sideways or down. Graduate
students would have been barred from changing educational level or major at any point. Undergraduates would
have faced that bar in their first year, absent extenuating circumstances. Dependants would have followed
the same fixed-term structure.

Consider a doctoral researcher from India in year five of a six-year programme. Under the old system her
status simply continued. Under the new rule she would have needed an approved extension, filed on time, with
a reason a USCIS officer accepted.

Who the duration of status injunction reaches

The order is nationwide. It is not limited to the plaintiffs or to Massachusetts. Every F, J and I visa
holder in the United States sits under the old framework while it stands.

Harvard’s International Office had spent weeks urging students to be physically inside the country on 15
September. On 14 September it said the rule now has no immediate impact on visas, or on starting an autumn
programme. Other universities issued similar notices. Read institutional guidance rather
than social media summaries, because each school phrases the practical advice differently.

One caution is worth repeating. An injunction is provisional. Travel plans built on the assumption that
the old rules will last all year carry real risk. The advice many advisers gave before the ruling — avoid
non-essential international travel while the litigation runs — has not stopped being sensible.

Where the case goes from here

Three things decide what students face next. The first is whether the government appeals to the First
Circuit and asks for a stay. The second is how the district court rules on the merits, which can take
months. The third is whether DHS withdraws the rule and issues a revised version with a fuller
justification.

Meanwhile the paperwork built for the rule is still arriving. USCIS moved to new editions of Form I-539
and Form I-765 dated 09/15/26, drafted partly around the fixed-term framework. Our companion piece on the
new USCIS form editions taking
effect today sets out what to file and when. We also covered
the rule itself when
its effective date was still standing, and the separate
public charge test arriving
on 18 September, which is not affected by this order.

Common questions about the ruling

Is the duration of status rule dead?

No. A court has postponed its effective date while litigation continues. The rule still exists and the government can defend it.

Do I still get an open-ended admission?

While the injunction stands, yes. F and J admissions continue under duration of status rather than a date-certain I-94.

Does this change my 60-day grace period?

The cut from 60 days to 30 for F visa holders was part of the blocked rule. It is not in force while the order stands.

Should I travel internationally now?

Speak to your designated school official first. An injunction can be stayed on appeal, and the rules at the moment of re-entry are what count.

Which court issued the order?

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in a case brought by NAFSA, the Presidents’ Alliance, AICUM and several unions.

Sources

14 Sep 2026
green card category retrogression

This US Green Card Category Could Slam Shut in the Next Two Weeks

Categories Immigration, Visa Updates

The State Department’s September 2026 Visa Bulletin warns of a possible green card category retrogression. It could hit several employment-based categories before the fiscal year closes on September 30. EB-1 India, EB-2 for all countries, and the EB-5 Unreserved category are all named. The trigger is simple. Demand keeps pace with how many visa numbers remain available.

Why a Green Card Category Retrogression Happens Every September

Congress caps the number of employment-based green cards issued each fiscal year. The State Department allocates those numbers on a rolling basis through the Visa Bulletin. A category’s usage can near its annual limit before the fiscal year ends. When that happens, the department has two options. It can retrogress the final action date, pushing it backward so fewer applicants qualify. Or it can make the category fully unavailable until the new fiscal year opens on October 1. This is an annual bottleneck, not a new policy change. It recurs whenever demand in a category runs ahead of supply late in the fiscal cycle.

Which Categories Are Actually at Risk This Year

green card category retrogression

Immigration firms including Fragomen have summarized the September bulletin’s warnings. EB-1 India’s final action date currently sits at October 15, 2022. High demand could still exhaust that category’s annual allocation before new numbers open in FY2027. EB-2 for all countries has already been marked “Unavailable” for the rest of FY2026. EB-5 Unreserved faces a similar risk. The State Department says demand and usage there could force a retrogression or closure before September 30. The goal is keeping total number use within the fiscal year’s cap.

What Retrogression Actually Means for an Applicant

If a category retrogresses or becomes unavailable, USCIS generally cannot approve new applications in it. That holds until the next fiscal year begins. It also holds even if an applicant’s priority date was previously current. Applicants who already filed shouldn’t need to refile once new numbers open on October 1. Still, they may see a real gap of days or weeks with no further approvals in that category. Fragomen’s guidance notes something reassuring here. USCIS has said it will keep honoring final action dates that were current when a case was filed. That softens some of the risk for applicants already in the pipeline.

How This Differs From the October Bulletin’s Good News

This warning about near-term retrogression tells a different story. Tamara News covered a more optimistic outlook for the October 2026 bulletin separately. That bulletin could reopen EB-2 India and advance other stalled categories once the new fiscal year begins. Both things can be true at once. A category can face retrogression risk in late September. It can still see meaningful forward movement starting October 1. The annual limits simply reset with the new fiscal year.

Why Fiscal Year-End Timing Catches People Off Guard

Applicants who checked their category’s status earlier in the summer sometimes assume it holds steady until the next bulletin. It often doesn’t. Category movement can shift week to week in September specifically. That is when USCIS and the State Department reconcile actual number use against the annual cap for the first time all year. Attorneys describe the final weeks of the fiscal year as the least predictable stretch on the entire visa calendar. That is exactly why guidance can change with little advance notice.

Who This Warning Doesn’t Affect

Family-based green card categories operate under a separate set of annual limits and aren’t named in this particular warning. Neither are most other employment-based categories outside EB-1 India, EB-2, and EB-5 Unreserved, which have their own final action dates and haven’t shown the same usage pressure this fiscal year. That’s a separate question from the public charge rule taking effect September 18, which affects admissibility rather than annual visa limits. Applicants in unaffected categories should still track the monthly bulletin as a matter of routine, but the September 30 deadline pressure described here applies specifically to the three categories named above.

What Applicants Should Do Before September 30

Immigration attorneys generally advise one thing to applicants with pending cases in EB-1 India, EB-2 or EB-5 Unreserved: confirm case status with counsel now. Waiting for a possible retrogression announcement carries real risk. USCIS processing timelines mean action taken in the final two weeks of September matters more than usual. Applicants should also watch for the October 2026 Visa Bulletin’s publication. It’s expected in the second half of September, and it will confirm whether any at-risk categories actually retrogressed or held steady.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a green card category retrogression?
It’s when the State Department moves a visa category’s final action date backward, or makes it unavailable. This happens when usage nears the fiscal year’s annual limit.

Which green card categories are at risk before September 30, 2026?
EB-1 India, EB-2 for all countries, and EB-5 Unreserved are the categories the State Department flagged as at risk.

Will I have to refile my application if my category retrogresses?
Generally no. USCIS has said it will keep honoring final action dates that were current when a case was filed. New approvals may still pause until the next fiscal year.

Does this affect the October 2026 Visa Bulletin outlook?
No, they’re separate. A category can face retrogression risk in late September and still move forward once new fiscal year numbers open on October 1.

When does the new fiscal year’s visa allocation begin?
October 1, 2026. Fresh annual numbers become available then for every employment-based category.

Sources

  • Fragomen — United States: September 2026 Visa Bulletin analysis. fragomen.com
  • US Department of State — Visa Bulletin for September 2026. travel.state.gov

13 Sep 2026
Passport and immigration paperwork on a desk, illustrating the new public charge rule for green card applicants

The New Public Charge Rule Starts September 18

Categories Immigration

From 18 September, US immigration officers regain broad discretion to decide whether a green card applicant is likely to become dependent on public benefits. The new public charge rule rescinds the 2022 regulation that had narrowed that assessment to a defined set of benefits and factors, and restores a looser “totality of the circumstances” test.

The final rule was published in the Federal Register on 20 July 2026, following a DHS announcement on 16 July.

Discretion is the substance of the change

Public charge is an old provision of US immigration law: an applicant deemed likely to become primarily dependent on government support can be refused. What shifts between administrations is not the principle but how much room the adjudicating officer has.

The 2022 rule constrained that room. It specified which benefits counted, which factors could be weighed, and how. An officer worked within defined boundaries.

The new rule removes those boundaries and returns to an individualised judgement across the totality of an applicant’s circumstances — age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education and skills.

The practical effect is variability. Two applicants with similar profiles can receive different outcomes from different officers, and there is less regulatory text to point to on appeal.

More benefits enter the calculation

The rule expands what may be considered. An applicant’s application for, approval for, certification to receive, or receipt of means-tested public benefits can be weighed — including categories generally excluded under the 2022 rule, such as certain Medicaid, SNAP, CHIP, food and housing benefits.

Note the breadth of the verbs. Having applied for a benefit may be considered, whether or not it was received.

The date that determines which rule applies to you

This is the part worth getting exactly right.

The new rule applies to applications for admission made on or after 18 September 2026, and to adjustment of status applications postmarked or electronically submitted on or after 18 September 2026.

Applications submitted before that date are assessed under the 2022 framework. Receipt of means-tested benefits before 18 September will also be considered consistently with the 2022 rule — so past benefit use is not retroactively reassessed under the new standard.

For anyone with a substantially complete filing, the submission date carries real weight.

Who is and is not affected

Public charge does not apply to every immigration category. Refugees and asylees are exempt, as are several humanitarian categories and applicants for naturalisation, where the test is not part of the assessment.

It applies principally to family-based and employment-based green card applicants, and to some applicants for admission at a port of entry.

A recurring problem in previous rounds of public charge tightening was the chilling effect: eligible people, including US citizen children, dropped out of benefit programmes they were entitled to, out of fear it would affect a relative’s case. Benefits received by other household members are not automatically attributed to the applicant, and the exempt categories remain exempt. Anyone unsure of their position should get advice specific to their category rather than withdrawing from support pre-emptively.

What applicants can reasonably do

  • Check your submission date against 18 September. If your filing is nearly ready, that date decides which framework governs it.
  • Assemble evidence of financial self-sufficiency. Under a totality test, the strength of the overall picture matters more than any single element — income, assets, employment history, education, skills, health insurance.
  • Confirm whether your category is subject to the test at all before changing anything about benefit enrolment.
  • Expect less predictability. Broader discretion means outcomes vary more between officers, which is an argument for a thorough filing rather than a minimal one.

USCIS maintains guidance on public charge determinations in its newsroom.

Read alongside the wider tightening

This is not an isolated adjustment. It arrives days after the end of duration of status for student visas, and follows fee increases on employer-sponsored routes covered in our report on the H-1B extension surcharge. The consular network is also being reorganised, as we noted when USCIS opened a new overseas office.

Applicants planning multi-year pathways should assume the rules governing the later stages may not be the rules in place today.

Questions on the public charge test

When does the new public charge rule take effect?

18 September 2026. It applies to admission applications made on or after that date and adjustment of status applications postmarked or filed electronically on or after that date.

What is the main change?

USCIS officers regain broad discretion to make an individualised “totality of the circumstances” determination, rather than being limited to the defined benefits and factors set out in the 2022 rule.

Which benefits can now be considered?

Means-tested public benefits including certain Medicaid, SNAP, CHIP, food and housing benefits that were generally excluded under the 2022 rule. Applying for or being certified to receive them may also be weighed.

Will benefits I received in the past count against me?

Benefits received before 18 September 2026 will be considered consistently with the 2022 rule, not the new standard.

Does public charge apply to all green card applicants?

No. Refugees, asylees and several humanitarian categories are exempt, and it does not apply to naturalisation. It applies mainly to family-based and employment-based applicants.

Should I withdraw from benefits I currently receive?

Not without advice specific to your category. Exempt categories remain exempt, and benefits received by other household members are not automatically attributed to the applicant.

Our immigration desk is tracking each of the autumn US changes as they take effect — see the H-1B fee increase for the employment-route side.

24 Aug 2026
An international airport departure area, illustrating travel on advance parole and the new re-entry bar risk

BIA Ruling Means Advance Parole Travel Can Trigger a Re-Entry Bar

Categories Immigration

A decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals has removed a protection that many people relied on for more than a decade. From 13 August 2026, travel on advance parole counts as a departure from the United States for the purposes of the unlawful presence bars — meaning that leaving the country with a government-issued advance parole document can now trigger the three-year or ten-year bar to admission for someone who has accrued unlawful presence. The case is Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), and it expressly overrules Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012).

An aircraft in flight, illustrating how travel on advance parole can now trigger a US re-entry bar

The practical consequence is narrow but severe. It does not affect everyone who holds an advance parole document. It matters enormously for the subset who have periods of unlawful presence behind them and who assumed, correctly until this month, that authorised travel carried no re-entry penalty.

Why travel on advance parole now carries a bar risk

Section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act makes a person inadmissible for three years if they accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence and then departed, and for ten years if they accrued a year or more and then departed. In 2012, Arrabally held that a temporary trip abroad on advance parole was qualitatively different, because it presupposed a return and the continuation of an adjustment application, and so was not the kind of departure that triggered the bar.

The Board has now rejected that reading. Its reasoning is textual: Congress used the word “departure” without defining it, did not write an advance parole exception into section 212(a)(9)(B), and elsewhere in the statute showed that it knew how to address advance parole expressly when it wanted to. The Board acknowledged that treating authorised travel as a triggering departure can produce a harsh result, but concluded the text did not permit an exception.

The decision directly concerns the ten-year bar at section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). Because the same word “departure” appears in the three-year provision, and because agencies had applied the Arrabally rationale to both, commentators expect the reasoning to reach the three-year bar as well.

Who is most exposed to the change

The people with the most at stake are those whose route to a green card depended on the combination of an advance parole departure and a parole re-entry. Under section 245(a), an applicant for adjustment of status must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, and must be admissible for permanent residence. For someone who originally entered without inspection, returning on advance parole supplied the missing “paroled” element. After Delcarmen-Lara, that same trip may now create an inadmissibility problem that blocks the adjustment it was meant to enable.

Groups that should look closely include:

  • DACA recipients considering travel on advance parole. The respondent in the case had been granted DACA in 2013 and was paroled back into the country in January 2024.
  • Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries who travel on advance parole.
  • Adjustment applicants with any earlier period of unlawful presence, including those who entered without inspection.
  • Anyone whose longer-term immigration plan assumes a future advance parole trip will be consequence-free.

Equally important is who is not affected. If you have never accrued unlawful presence — because you were always in a period of authorised stay, or because any gaps were shorter than the statutory thresholds, or because time in certain protected categories did not count — the bars in section 212(a)(9)(B) are not triggered by a departure at all. The unlawful presence calculation is technical and highly fact-dependent, which is precisely why a case-by-case review with an immigration attorney matters more here than in most policy stories.

The ruling looks forward, not back

Because it was overruling long-standing precedent that people had relied on, the Board carried out a retroactivity analysis and held that the new rule applies prospectively. Advance parole travel completed before 13 August 2026 is not governed by Delcarmen-Lara; travel on or after that date is.

That limitation is meaningful for pending cases, and it preserves an argument that earlier trips should still be assessed under Arrabally. It is not, however, a guarantee. The exact scope of the prospective holding is the kind of question that gets refined through agency guidance and federal court litigation, and the immigration bar has already flagged it as unsettled. Commentators have also questioned whether the Board should be reworking its own favourable interpretations by invoking the Supreme Court’s move away from judicial deference, and note that federal courts remain free to read the statute independently.

What to weigh before booking a trip

There is no need for panic, and equally no room for improvisation. If you hold advance parole and have any history of unlawful presence, the sequence that makes sense is: establish the facts, get advice, then decide about travel — not the other way round.

That means building an accurate timeline of every period of status and every gap, identifying whether any gap crossed the 180-day or one-year thresholds, and checking whether periods such as deferred action or certain pending applications counted as authorised stay. A later period of authorised stay does not erase unlawful presence already accrued. Once the timeline is clear, an attorney can assess whether a departure would trigger a bar, whether a waiver route exists, and whether the trip is worth the risk. For urgent humanitarian travel the analysis may still favour going; for a holiday it rarely will.

Watch for two developments. USCIS guidance implementing the decision would clarify how officers treat both the three-year bar and pre-13 August travel. Federal litigation may test the Board’s reading of “departure” directly. Until either arrives, the safest working assumption is that the decision means what it says. The ruling itself is published by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and a detailed practitioner analysis is available from Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners.

Reader questions answered

Does this affect everyone with advance parole?
No. It matters for people who have accrued unlawful presence. Without unlawful presence above the statutory thresholds, a departure does not trigger the three-year or ten-year bar.

What if I travelled on advance parole before 13 August 2026?
The Board held that the decision applies prospectively, so earlier trips are not governed by it. The precise scope of that holding may be clarified in later guidance or litigation.

Does the decision apply to the three-year bar as well as the ten-year bar?
The decision addresses the ten-year bar. Its reading of “departure” is widely expected to reach the three-year provision too, since agencies had applied the earlier precedent to both, but that has not been separately decided.

Can a bar be waived?
Waivers exist for the unlawful presence bars in some circumstances and depend on qualifying relatives and other criteria. Whether one is available is a case-specific legal question.

Should I cancel planned travel?
That is a decision to take with a licensed immigration attorney after reviewing your status history, not on the basis of a news summary.

Tamara News covers immigration policy across major destinations — see also our reporting on the UK’s Appendix FM family visa changes and New Zealand’s skilled migrant points settings.

24 Aug 2026
Immigration paperwork on a desk, illustrating a USCIS denial without RFE under the new guidance

USCIS Can Now Deny Applications Without Asking for Evidence

Categories Immigration

Filing an application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services used to come with an informal safety net: if something was missing, officers would usually ask for it before refusing the case. That expectation no longer holds. Guidance issued on 5 August 2026 means a USCIS denial without RFE is now a realistic outcome whenever a filing arrives without the required initial evidence, or with evidence that does not establish eligibility. Officers may refuse the application or petition outright, with no Request for Evidence and no Notice of Intent to Deny first.

Documents being reviewed at an office desk, illustrating a USCIS denial without RFE under the 2026 guidance

The change came through Policy Alert PA-2026-05, which updates Volume 1, Part E of the USCIS Policy Manual. It took effect immediately and applies to benefit requests pending or filed on or after 5 August 2026, unless a regulation or another USCIS policy says otherwise.

How a USCIS denial without RFE now works

The underlying authority is not new. Regulations have long allowed officers to deny a filing that lacks required initial evidence. What changed is the instruction around that authority. Earlier policy encouraged officers to issue an RFE or a NOID before denying a case with an evidentiary gap. The revised guidance restores full discretion to deny first.

USCIS has explained the change as a response to frivolous, placeholder and substantially incomplete filings, which it says added to adjudication delays. The alert also restates a principle that has always applied but now carries more weight: the applicant or petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility at the time of filing and throughout the adjudication.

Three further adjustments in the same alert matter in practice:

  • Shorter response windows. Officers are not required to allow the customary maximum RFE response period and may set shorter deadlines, within the regulatory limits, case by case.
  • No extra fortnight for international mail. The previous practice of adding 14 days when a notice was mailed to someone outside the United States, or issued by an international office, has been removed. The general rule of a few additional days for service by mail applies instead.
  • Partial responses count as final. Sending back some but not all of what an RFE or NOID asked for will ordinarily be treated as a request for USCIS to decide the case on the record as submitted.

What the guidance leaves untouched

It is worth being precise about the limits of this change, because early commentary has sometimes overstated it.

RFEs and NOIDs have not been abolished. Officers keep the discretion to issue them, and practitioners expect them to remain common in complex employment-based filings where the question is one of degree rather than a missing document. The guidance does not create a new ground of ineligibility, and it does not change the substantive legal standards for any benefit. It also does not override situations where a regulation or a separate USCIS policy requires a notice before denial.

What it does remove is the assumption that a thin filing will be met with a request rather than a refusal. For applicants who submit complete, well-documented cases from the outset, the practical effect should be limited. For anyone who has treated the initial filing as a first draft, the risk profile has shifted considerably — and a denial costs the filing fee, the processing time, and in some categories the underlying status or work authorisation.

How filings should be prepared now

None of the following is legal advice for a particular case, and readers with anything unusual in their history should consult a licensed immigration attorney. But the general implications are straightforward.

  • Check the form instructions and the required initial evidence list for the specific edition of the form being filed, and include every listed item. Omissions that once drew a request may now draw a refusal.
  • Do not file to hold a place while documents are gathered. A placeholder filing is exactly what the guidance targets.
  • Explain the evidence rather than leaving officers to infer eligibility. Where a required document genuinely does not exist, address that in a cover letter with secondary evidence rather than staying silent.
  • If an RFE does arrive, read the deadline carefully rather than assuming the maximum period, and begin gathering material immediately. Applicants outside the United States should assume less mail time than before.
  • Respond in full. A partial response invites a decision on an incomplete record.

Documentary rigour is becoming the norm across major destinations, not only in the United States; readers comparing systems may find our explainer on proof of funds requirements in the UK, Canada and Australia a useful parallel, alongside our coverage of the UK’s Appendix FM family visa changes.

Where this leaves applicants and employers

The immediate effect is on filings already in the queue, because the guidance reaches benefit requests pending on 5 August 2026 as well as those filed afterwards. Anyone with a case in progress that was assembled on the older assumption may want to review it with counsel and consider whether to supplement the record before an officer reaches it.

For employers, the practical work is process work: build longer evidence-gathering time into filing calendars, avoid last-minute submissions timed to a deadline, and make sure someone is monitoring the post so a shortened RFE deadline is not missed. For individuals, the calculation is similar on a smaller scale. Watch, too, for how the guidance is applied in practice over the coming months — denial rates and the tone of adjudications will show whether this is a modest recalibration or a substantial tightening. The primary sources are the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 1, Part E and the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s summary of the policy alert.

Common questions about the new guidance

When did the guidance take effect?
5 August 2026. It applies to benefit requests pending on that date or filed on or after it, unless a regulation or another USCIS policy provides otherwise.

Does this mean RFEs have been abolished?
No. Officers retain discretion to issue Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny. The guidance removes the expectation that one will be issued before a denial.

Which filings are affected?
The guidance sits in the general evidentiary part of the Policy Manual, so it reaches benefit requests broadly rather than a single visa category, subject to any regulation or policy that requires notice in a specific context.

Can a denial be challenged?
Depending on the benefit type, options can include a motion to reopen or reconsider, an appeal, or refiling. Which of these is available and sensible is case-specific and worth discussing with an attorney promptly, because deadlines are short.

Has the RFE response deadline changed?
Officers may now set shorter response periods within the regulatory limits rather than defaulting to the maximum, and the extra 14 days previously allowed for notices sent internationally has been removed.

For more on how documentation rules are tightening elsewhere, see our coverage of Canada’s French-language Express Entry draws.

1 2 3 4