Results

This practice advisory provides information about recently implemented fee increases at USCIS and EOIR. These fee increases are a result of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” also known as HR1. This advisory explores what we know and what we still don’t know about the fees, how to pay them, and potential future changes.

On September 30, 2025, ILRC submitted this comment to USCIS to oppose the proposed changes to the N-648 and request that they be withdrawn. The changes create a series of substantial obstacles for naturalization applicants applying for a disability waiver of the English/civics requirement. The proposed changes create a form more than twice the length (10 pp.) of the current form (just over 4 pp.) that creates an undue burden on applicants and the medical professional who must complete the N-648. It also doubles the burden of time for USCIS adjudicators who must review this form.

The barrier that these changes would pose is prejudicial to eligible waiver applicants. Standards expressed in the revised form are outside any guidance provided by the statute, regulations and USCIS Policy Manual. The form purports to create law and invents barriers to eligibility in areas where no such law has been established by legitimate guidance.

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) opposes the general elimination of money order and check payments for immigration benefit filings. This change was introduced by a USCIS alert on changes to the USCIS Policy Manual on August 29, 2025, to be effective as of October 28, 2025. The new guidance states that all applications filed October 28, 2025, or after must pay by ACH bank account payment, credit or debit card, or pre-paid card. No bank checks, certified checks, personal checks or money orders will be accepted thereafter.

This resource – created with our partners at the Children’s Immigration Law Academy and National Immigration Project – answers common questions about expedited removal and its application to children and offers arguments against its application to young people who were processed as UCs and young people with approved special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS), should the government attempt to apply it to those groups.

ILRC submitted this comment on November 25, 2025 opposing the Interim Final Rule (IFR) eliminating automatic extensions of Employment Authorization Documents (“EADs”). The IFR was improvidently issued without prior notice and comment, is unsupported by data or reasoned analysis, and falsely claims that it is part of a foreign affairs exception intended for regulations which impact international policies.

From October 3-7, 2025, Goodwin Simon Strategic Research surveyed a statewide representative sample of 1,213 registered voters. The poll explored voter attitudes towards mass deportation, recent ICE actions, and sanctuary protections in the state. Uniquely, this poll explores key themes that may be driving Californians’ growing disapproval of mass deportation, including revealing voters’ strong support for due process, including for people with past records, and equal treatment in the legal system, regardless of immigration status. Voters also expressed deep concern with the cost of the Trump administration’s approach to immigration on taxpayers.

Information about these agreements and the rights of asylum seekers in immigration court proceedings if the government makes this argument in an immigration court hearing.

This brief spotlights legislative activity in Texas and Florida, it also covers a non-exhaustive list of other states that have recently enacted a patchwork of anti-immigrant laws and policies seeking to harm and hinder immigrant communities and their allies.

Our 2025 winter edition of the newsletter. In this issue: In this issue: Message from the ILRC, Red Cards: Protecting Immigrants Since 2006, Texas Updates from Laredo & Houston, 2025 Burton Awards: Celebrating Together.

This practice advisory will highlight some trends, policy changes, and what could happen with the future of DACA.

This advisory explains each of the three statutory grounds for mandatory detention, and defenses and strategies that advocates can use to challenge the designation. It discusses the Laken Riley Act of 2025, the BIA’s decisions in Matter of Q. Li and Matter of Yajure Hurtado, and the current state of national litigation challenging ICE’s expansive use of mandatory detention.

In recent months, practitioners have been reporting troubling new patterns in FOIA processing of A-file requests. Some people report unusually high rejection rates on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for reasons related to address requirements. Rejections due to “no record” also have been reported even where the requester is sure that there is a record because they have a partial paper trail of contacts with USCIS. Frequent over redaction of FOIA responses also has been reported. This alert discusses the address issue and suggests how to respond.

On December 22, 2025, DHS published a final rule impacting processing of FOIA requests by all DHS components. The rule is effective January 22, 2026. Despite the major changes made by the rule, no period of public comment was provided. The rule eliminates paper filing of FOIA requests with DHS as of January 22, 2026. FOIAs to DHS must be filed online after that date. The rule also states that DHS can, in its discretion, administratively close or make “requests for clarification” where it deems the request to be an inadequate description of the records sought.