Tweet
Immigration News – 9/15/26 Is D/S Restrictive Rule Day; 9/15/26 Is Day 1 for D/S Unlawful Presence (Those No Longer in Status); 9/18/26 Is Public Charge Restrictive Rule Day; Extra Care Required Checking Over Applications and Petitions Before Submission; Dorcas Ruling Allows 39 Banned Country Adjudications for Now.
by Alan Lee, Esq.
- 9/15/26 is D/S restrictive rule day.
September 15, 2026, is the implementation date of the F, J, and I regulation. See the Federal Register notice. Looking specifically at F-1 students, the regulation will do away with duration of status (D/S) at the shorter date of either November 14, 2030, or the ending date of the I-20 in effect for the student on September 15, 2026. If obtaining a new I-20 before that date, the student and institution should ensure that SEVIS is aware of the new extension I-20. In addition, forms I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status and I-765 Application for Employment Authorization will change on that day and only the 9/15/26 edition of the forms will be accepted. As those are forms used by persons seeking different categories of benefits, such other individuals should note the changes of forms.
- 9/15/26 is day 1 for D/S unlawful presence (those no longer in status).
D/S designation has long been treasured as individuals including mostly students holding D/S do not accumulate “unlawful presence” even if they have long stopped the D/S activity and have no other status unless they have incurred an adverse adjudication by DHS or an immigration judge. Now those who are in expired D/S status will become subject to the 3 and 10 year bars which are imposed upon most persons in the country illegally for 180 days or one year respectively after April 1, 1997. The new rule is not retroactive, and so September 15, 2026, will count as the first day of illegality for purposes of the time bars. Once an individual leaves or is made to leave the US, he or she becomes subject to the time bars when attempting to reenter the country.
- 9/18/26 is public charge restrictive rule day.
September 18, 2026, is the implementation date of the new public charge regulation. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/20/2026-14539/public-charge-ground-of-inadmissibility . USCIS issued a policy memorandum, “USCIS Issues Guidance On Making Public Charge Inadmissibility Determination” on August 18, 2026, outlining the factors that officers will be looking at. 5 factors that they will consider are an alien’s age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills.
For people who have received means tested benefits before 9/18/26, USCIS will only consider the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense. For means tested public benefits received on or after 9/18/26, USCIS will consider any and all benefits.
Where a USCIS officer finds inadmissibility only on the public charge issue, he or she may invite the alien to post a public charge bond. This will be the decision of the officer. It would be done on a notice of intent to deny (NOID), and people would submit form I-945 cash bond or surety bond (posted through a surety company certified by the U.S. Treasury) by submitting the I-945.
In addition, Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status will change on that day and only the 9/18/26 edition of the form will be accepted on or after that day. In checking the new I-485 form, the applicable changes are on pages 19 and 20. The 1/20/25 version asks questions on specific benefits which would subject a person to the public charge requirement prior to 9/18/26 – SSI, temporary assistance for needy families (TANF), cash benefit programs for income maintenance, or long-term institutionalization at government expense. There are 2 boxes on page 20 – one asking to explain SSI, etc. and the second the details on long term institutionalization.
The new form eliminates all this and only asks on page 19, “Have you ever received any means tested public benefit?” and on page 20 provides a box for the applicant to explain the means tested benefit with columns for specifying “means tested public benefit received”, “start date”, “end date”, “dollar amount (if applicable)”, and “reason”.
- Extra care required checking over applications and petitions before submission.
There is now more than ever a premium for being careful on filing cases with USCIS stating in an August 5 policy email, “USCIS to Reduce Frivolous Immigration Benefits Request by Reinforcing Evidence Standards”, that it can deny immigration benefit requests without first issuing a RFE or NOID; that form instructions specify all required initial evidence for every benefit request; that USCIS has restored officers’ full discretion to deny benefit requests without first issuing an RFE or NOID in various situations; and the policy update amends the previous Biden era policy which encouraged officers to request evidence before denying a benefit request even if the benefit requester filed an incomplete application, failed to demonstrate eligibility for the benefit, or failed to provide the initial evidence that was clearly required at the time of filing. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20260805-EvidentiaryStandards.pdf
This emphasis on completeness means that applicants now have to double check their petitions and applications to make sure that they have everything that is required for completeness – also if applicants or their legal representatives have petitions or applications with which they are not very familiar, they should go over the instructions page to ensure that they have all of the required initial evidence.
- Dorcas ruling allows 39 banned country adjudications for now.
Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island who ruled in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS that the government must begin to again process the cases of those subject to the travel ban, refused to pause his June 5, 2026, ruling vacating the indefinite hold on immigration processing finding that the government would not be harmed. On appeal to the First Circuit, the Court ruled on August 14 that a stay on McConnell’s order was appropriate for a government comprehensive re-review policy, but was not appropriate for the benefits hold policy which remains vacated. Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, No. 26-1703 (1st Cir.) https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1703P-01A.pdf. The American Immigration Lawyers Association has reported member responses that cases subject to the pause are being adjudicated. It also reports that the treatment of premium processing refunds appears varied. Individuals from the 39 countries who are contemplating the filing of a petition or application to USCIS may give serious consideration to premium processing (Form I-907 Request for Premium Processing Service). The 39 country ban affects natives and nationals of Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burma (Myanmar), Burundi, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, The Gambia, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
About The Author
Alan Lee, Esq. is an exclusive practitioner of immigration law based in New York City with an AV preeminent rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory for 20+ years, registered in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, on the New York Super Lawyers list (2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-2015, 2015-2026), and listed in Best Lawyers in America® in 2025 & 2026. He has written extensively on immigration over the past years for Interpreter Releases, Immigration Daily, and the ethnic newspapers, World Journal, Sing Tao, Epoch Times, Pakistan Calling, Muhasba and OCS; testified as an expert on immigration in civil court proceedings; and is a regular contributor to Martindale-Hubbell's Ask-a-Lawyer program. His article, "The Bush Temporary Worker Proposal and Comparative Pending Legislation: an Analysis" was Interpreter Releases' cover display article at the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference in 2004; his 2004 case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Firstland International v. INS, successfully challenged Legacy INS' policy of over 40 years of revoking approved immigrant visa petitions under a nebulous standard of proof, although its central holding that the government had to notify approved immigrant petition holders of the revocation prior to the their departure to the U. S. for the petition to be able to be revoked was short-lived as it was specifically targeted in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (which in response changed the language of the revocation statute itself). Yet Firstland lives on as precedent that the government must comply with nondiscretionary duties established in law, and such failure is reviewable in federal courts. His 2015 case, Matter of Leacheng International, Inc., with the Administrative Appeals Office of USCIS (AAO) set nation-wide standards on the definition of "doing business" for multinational executives and managers to gain immigration benefits.
