For audio listeners, you can listen to our audio version of the News Digest here. You can also join our Immigration News Digest Newsletter here.

• Board Rules DACA Does Not Automatically Halt Removal Proceedings
• Federal Court Orders Continued Green Card Processing while USCIS Announced Re-vetting of Certain Adjustment of Status Applications for New Biometrics
• Supreme Court to Review DOL Authority Over H-2A Penalties
• DOS has Introduced Asylum-Related Questions to the Nonimmigrant Visa Interview Process

Board Rules DACA Does Not Automatically Halt Removal Proceedings

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a precedential decision clarifying that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) does not, by itself, justify termination of removal proceedings. The ruling overturns an immigration judge’s decision that ended a case solely based on active DACA status.

The Board emphasized that DACA is a form of prosecutorial discretion and does not confer lawful status or a guaranteed right to remain in the United States. As a result, immigration judges must conduct a full discretionary analysis.

DACA may be considered a positive factor but is not determinative. Judges must weigh government objections, the public interest in resolving cases on the merits, and whether any path to permanent status is supported by concrete evidence.

The case has been remanded for further proceedings, reinforcing that removal cases involving DACA recipients will continue through the immigration court system unless independently resolved.

Impact: This decision narrows DACA’s practical protections in removal proceedings and underscores the need for broader immigration strategies, as DACA alone does not prevent enforcement actions.

Federal Court Orders Continued Green Card Processing while USCIS Announced Re-vetting of Certain Adjustment of Status Applications for New Biometrics

A federal judge in Maryland has ruled that the government must continue processing green card applications and cannot impose indefinite pauses on adjudication, including in cases subject to heightened vetting.

The court found that immigration agencies have a legal obligation to adjudicate applications within a reasonable timeframe.  While agencies retain discretion to approve or deny applications, they cannot leave them unresolved indefinitely.

The ruling underscores that applicants are entitled to timely adjudication, that policy-driven pauses must comply with administrative law, and that open-ended delays create unlawful uncertainty.

This aligns with broader legal principles requiring agencies to act  within a reasonable period, even when additional screening or policy reviews are underway. Meanwhile, on April 27, USCIS announced that it will pause adjudication of some Adjustment of Status applications in response to a new FBI vetting system that requires the re-submission of biometrics.

Impact: The decision reinforces limits on government authority to delay immigration benefits. Employers and applicants may see improved predictability in green card processing, though broader policy changes could still affect timelines.  However, new policies requiring the resubmission of biometrics may continue to delay certain applications.

Supreme Court to Review DOL Authority Over H-2A Penalties

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a case examining whether the Department of Labor (DOL) can impose fines through its internal administrative process under the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program.

At issue is whether DOL can adjudicate wage and labor violations and assess penalties without  proceedings in federal court, raising broader constitutional questions about administrative enforcement and agency authority.

The H-2A program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign agricultural workers when domestic labor is unavailable. DOL oversees compliance with wage, housing, and working condition requirements, and has historically enforced violations through administrative proceedings.

The Court will consider due process implications, limits on agency enforcement authority, and the role of federal courts in issuing or reviewing penalties.

Impact: A ruling limiting DOL’s enforcement authority could shift enforcement to federal courts and reshape compliance strategies for H-2A employers. 

DOS has Introduced Asylum-Related Questions to the Nonimmigrant Visa Interview Process

Effective April 28, consular officers are now required to ask all nonimmigrant visa applicants two additional questions during their interviews. These questions are intended to assess whether an applicant may have the intent to seek asylum after entering the United States.

Specifically, applicants will be asked whether they have experienced harm in their home country and whether they fear returning there. These topics align directly with the core elements of an asylum claim under U.S. law. By incorporating these questions into routine visa interviews, the State Department aims to identify individuals who may pursue asylum after arrival, even if they are applying for a temporary, nonimmigrant visa.

This procedural update stems from an April 28 State Department cable that instructs consular officers to consistently apply this new line of questioning. The guidance also establishes strict consequences: if an applicant answers “yes” to either question, or refuses to respond, the consular officer is directed to deny the visa application. This represents a notable shift, as it effectively introduces an asylum screening component into the nonimmigrant visa adjudication process.

Impact: Employers may see increased visa denials and processing uncertainty for foreign national employees, particularly those from higher-risk regions, potentially disrupting workforce planning and mobility timelines.