Quoted by the Times of India on the Escalation in F-1 Student Status Enforcement
I was quoted by the Times of India on the escalation in F-1 student status enforcement: increased Requests for Evidence as well as unannounced site inspections and interviews by Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) officers.
These actions are consistent with the administration’s proclamation last weekend calling for a $100,000 H-1B fee and recently announced plans to restructure the cap lottery. It’s a coordinated strategy: scrutinize F-1 students with increased compliance demands and surprise inspections, then eliminate their future H-1B pathway with prohibitive fees.
With 1.58 million active F-1 students, 195,000 on OPT, and STEM participation surging 54% last year, the administration is focused on this large and vulnerable target, scrutinizing every move and policing every intention. They’re systematically dismantling merit-based immigration from root to fruit.
The Real Target of the $100,000 H-1B Fee May Be Harvard, Not Hyderabad
On Friday, the Trump administration issued an unprecedented proclamation announcing a new “supplemental entry fee” of $100,000 for foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States in H-1B status. The language was sweeping, and the initial read was that H-1B professionals and their families would face a six-figure hurdle tied to travel and reentry. Employers, immigration attorneys, and visa holders immediately scrambled to determine whether the rule applied retroactively, and if so, to whom. Panic followed. Those already abroad rushed to return to the U.S. before the policy took effect.
I was quoted by The Times of India in its article regarding the initial report. I stated that this proclamation was effectively, “Executive taxation without Congress approval”, and explained that, “Section 212(f) of the INA allows suspending entry, but it does not authorize a $100,000 charge or rewriting USCIS and DOS fee schedules by executive proclamation alone. This fee is unlawful on its face and appears entirely performative, calibrated to deliver a chilling effect on employers, and campuses.”
Then, late Saturday, came the administration’s clean-up. The Press Secretary tweeted that current H-1B holders and approved cases would not be charged and could travel and reenter as usual, and characterized the assessment as a one-time, petition-linked fee that would first show up in the next lottery cycle. More importantly, a USCIS memo and Department of State guidance followed, confirming that travel and renewals were unaffected and that the fee would apply prospectively only. USCIS’s memo put it plainly: This proclamation only applies prospectively to petitions that have not yet been filed. The proclamation does not apply to aliens who: are the beneficiaries of petitions that were filed prior to the effective date of the proclamation, are the beneficiaries of currently approved petitions, or are in possession of validly issued H-1B non-immigrant visas.” This language eased the immediate chaos for cap-subject H-1B employees at for-profit employers with petitions already filed or approved. As of now, they appear to be untouched by the proclamation and may continue to travel abroad, apply for H-1B visas, and file H-1B extensions or change-of-employer petitions. (Though I wouldn’t recommend travelling abroad at this time).
But not everyone was spared. In The Times of India’s follow-up report after the weekend guidance, I focused on who remains exposed and the possible rationale: “The proclamation still looms, quietly aligned against cap-exempt institutions that cannot afford a six-figure payout or a political war. These institutions may soon find themselves in the crosshairs. Not because they are immigrants, but because they are liberals.”
This omission for cap-exempt employment in the administration’s guidance looks like design, not oversight. Even if already approved/filed cap-subject H-1B workers can keep traveling and renewing, next fiscal year’s H-1B cap-subject cases remain at issue and will likely require litigation to resolve. Again, it is also telling that there is still no carve-out for cap-exempt employers. Universities and research centers are currently still subject to the fee and bear the heaviest burden, for now. That supports the inference that the intended targets may not have necessarily been software developers from Hyderabad, but faculty and researchers at elite liberal universities such as Harvard, which notably refused to back down when threatened with federal funding cuts by this administration. Shifting cost and risk onto the cap-exempt H-1B workforce they employ is a direct and effective strike that would impact certain institutions harder than funding cuts.
Due Process Concerns Raised in the BIA’s Matter of Yajure Hurtado
I was recently quoted in the Times of India regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ruling in Matter of Yajure Hurtado. This decision represents one of the most consequential shifts in immigration detention in recent memory, and its implications are deeply troubling.
The BIA held that immigration judges lack the authority to grant bond to individuals in removal proceedings who entered the United States without inspection. These individuals are now classified as “applicants for admission” under INA §235(b)(2)(A), and must remain in custody unless DHS (the very agency prosecuting their removal) chooses to parole them. In practical terms, this eliminates independent judicial oversight over custody for a significant category of noncitizens.
The ruling effectively creates a two-tier system of justice for those in immigration proceedings:
- Noncitizens who arrived lawfully, such as those on H-1B, F-1, or B-1/B-2 visas, retain the ability to seek judicial bond review even if their status lapses later.
- Noncitizens who crossed the border without papers now face mandatory detention, potentially for months or years, with no independent judicial review of their custody.
The consequences are severe. Prolonged detention isolates individuals from their families, legal support, and the evidence needed to mount a defense. It pressures even those with meritorious claims to abandon them, simply to escape confinement. In this context, detention shifts from a security measure to a tool of attrition: used to grind down individuals until self-deportation feels like the only way out.
As I noted to the Times of India:
“The new precedent…falls squarely on those who crossed without inspection, a category that includes tens of thousands of Indians who arrived during recent border surges (during 2021–2024). Any such individuals finding themselves in immigration court proceedings now face the harsh reality of litigating perhaps the most consequential case of their lives from behind bars.”
Yajure Hurtado erodes the most basic guarantee of due process by removing independent judicial review and placing liberty entirely in the hands of DHS. Detention, once intended as a narrowly drawn exception, would harden into the default condition for an entire class of people, as the system pivots to prioritize the manner of one’s arrival over the substance of one’s claims. The consequences are predictable: bloated dockets, strained detention facilities, rushed calendars, and an increase in continuances/abandoned cases.
Quoted in The Times of India on Secretary Rubio’s March 14, 2025 Memo Declaring Immigration a ‘Foreign Affairs’ Exception under APA
I was quoted in The Times of India regarding Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s controversial March 14, 2025 memo, in which he broadly declares that immigration and cross-border commerce regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they involve “foreign affairs” matters. This exemption effectively removes the public’s longstanding right to notice and comment on proposed regulations, a critical procedural safeguard ensuring transparency, fairness, and accountability. Under the APA, advocacy groups have previously succeeded in challenging actions by both Republican and Democratic administrations when procedural rules were ignored (including several immigration rules during Trump 1.0). Rubio’s memo now significantly restricts these judicial avenues, granting the executive branch substantial power to implement regulations affecting millions without public input and with greatly reduced judicial oversight.
This memo aligns with other moves and Executive Orders issued by this administration that collectively suggest an effort by by Trump 2.0 to expand presidential authority under the “unitary executive theory,” a controversial doctrine asserting that the President has broad, nearly unchecked control over the entire executive branch, an approach which would greatly impact congressional oversight, public accountability, and traditional democratic processes.
Article: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/119491450.cms
Quoted in the Times of India on the Growing Scrutiny of Elderly Green Card Holders at U.S. Ports of Entry
I was quoted in the Times of India recently on the growing scrutiny of elderly green card holders (Legal Permanent Residents/LPRs) at U.S. ports of entry. Some are facing secondary inspections and pressure from CBP to voluntarily surrender their green cards by signing a Form I-407, often without understanding the long-term consequences.
While the full extent of this shift is difficult to quantify, there are clear signs that CBP has adopted a stricter approach in its adjudications, particularly for LPRs who have spent significant time outside the U.S. Under the Biden administration, more discretion was generally exercised in these cases, but CBP has always had the authority to determine whether an individual has abandoned their status. Now, under the Trump 2.0 administration, we are already seeing a move toward more rigid adjudications for all non-citizens – not just green card holders. This heightened scrutiny aligns with the administration’s broader immigration enforcement trends, as seen in the increased detainment and deportation of visa and green card holders facing detainment and deportation for a range of reasons.
As I had blogged about in some detail back in January 2017, the best way to protect LPR status is to understand the regulations and avoid government scrutiny whenever possible – especially when discretion from adjudicating officers is increasingly uncertain. Immigration laws are strict and must be followed precisely, yet many LPRs continue to rely on misunderstandings about their obligations, for example, the belief that simply making a yearly back visit to the U.S. is sufficient to maintain their permanent residence indefinitely. That is not the case. The CBP and USCIS consider multiple factors when assessing whether an LPR has maintained residency, and the amount of time spent outside the U.S. is just one of them (though perhaps one of the more important considerations).
Further, even if an absence is under a year, and the LPR presents a valid green card for admission, that alone does not necessarily establish the requisite intent to reside permanently in the U.S. LPRs must take proactive, affirmative steps to protect their status. If they come under government scrutiny – whether due to frequent or extended absences, prior legal issues, or any other factors this administration chooses to target – they risk strict adjudication and enforcement. Waiting until you’re at the border to address these issues is a mistake. The time to prepare is now.
Below, I’ve outlined some steps LPRs could take to help minimize scrutiny and protect their status:
1. What can elderly green card holders do to prepare ahead of time, before they return to the US from an extended stay?
When elderly green card holders (LPRs) spend significant time outside the U.S., preparation is key to avoiding allegations of having abandoned their permanent resident status. If they intend to maintain their residency, they must document strong ties to the U.S. before returning. This includes, if applicable, filing U.S. tax returns as a resident (not nonresident), maintaining evidence of a U.S. residence (whether through ownership, a lease, or proof of unrestricted access to a relative’s home), keeping active U.S. bank accounts, and holding a valid U.S. driver’s license or state ID. Additional factors that strengthen their case include maintaining U.S. insurance, utility bills, and other financial transactions that show an intent for continued presence in the U.S.
LPRs should also be mindful of their ties to their home country – the fewer ties they have abroad (such as employment or immediate family), the stronger their U.S. residency claim. If they are actively winding down affairs overseas (reducing their foreign presence), such as selling property, that can further establish their intent to reside in the U.S. permanently. If delays in returning were due to extenuating circumstances (e.g., in the past we had COVID-19 travel bans or medical issues, but it could also be that an LPR’s U.S. employer required them abroad, etc), they should be ready to provide supporting evidence. For those with limited English proficiency, carrying a letter in English summarizing their U.S. ties, reasons for travel, and continued intent to live in the U.S. can help during CBP questioning.
For LPRs anticipating extended absences, obtaining a Reentry Permit (Form I-131) before departure is strongly recommended. While it does not guarantee reentry, an approved reentry permit helps counter presumptions of abandonment and provides additional protection when reentering the U.S.
2. If they do face pressure at the US entry point, what can they do?
CBP officers cannot unilaterally revoke an LPR’s status, but they may attempt to pressure green card holders into signing Form I-407 (Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status). If an LPR does not intend to give up their green card or permanent residence in the U.S., they should not sign this form. In these situations, it is crucial to stay calm but firm. While some CBP officers may be aggressive or persuasive, LPRs have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge and are not required to sign Form I-407. They should always be truthful while standing firm in asserting their rights.
Again, providing clear documentation of U.S. ties – such as filing U.S. tax returns, proof of a U.S. residence, family connections, and U.S. bills/financial records – can help rebut any claims of abandonment. Having a reasonable explanation for their time abroad, supported by evidence such as medical records or family obligations, can also be very beneficial.
If a CBP officer issues a Notice to Appear (NTA) for removal proceedings in immigration court, the LPR should contact an immigration attorney to prepare their case. An immigration judge, and not CBP, will determine whether they have abandoned their status. In court, the LPR will have the opportunity to present evidence and argue against the allegations of abandonment.
3. What can LPRs do to avoid such scrutiny?
To minimize scrutiny, LPRs should keep each trip abroad under 180 days to avoid being classified as “seeking readmission.” However, even if individual absences are shorter, a pattern of frequent, extended stays abroad can still raise red flags. In general, the more time an LPR spends in the U.S., the stronger their case for maintaining residency, especially if they plan to apply for naturalization in the future. Unlike green card holders, U.S. citizens are not subject to abandonment rules, making naturalization the best long-term safeguard against these issues.
The bottom line is this: LPRs who spend extended time outside the U.S. without strong, documented ties to the country and clear evidence of their intent to maintain permanent residence risk being deemed to have abandoned their status. Intent alone is not enough; CBP/immigration authorities assess actual proof, not just claims of intent.
To protect their LPR status, individuals must engage in proactive planning and maintain substantial evidence of their U.S. residency, including:
- Limiting prolonged or frequent absences abroad to avoid scrutiny.
- Maintaining strong U.S. ties, such as family ties, homeownership (or a lease, or other unrestricted access to a U.S. residence), tax filings, utility bills, bank accounts, and active U.S. employment.
- Minimizing foreign ties that could suggest permanent residence elsewhere.
- Obtaining a Reentry Permit (Form I-131) to help rebut abandonment claims.
LPRs should be prepared to justify any long absences with supporting documentation, assert their legal rights at the border, and refuse to sign Form I-407 under pressure if they do not intend to relinquish their status.
Quoted by the Times of India on President Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”
I was quoted by the Times of India on President Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” in which he stipulates that at least one parent now must be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for a child to obtain U.S. citizenship at birth. This order appears to directly contravene the 14th Amendment, which unequivocally states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been consistently interpreted to include nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status, other than children of enemy occupiers or diplomats. The landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) reaffirmed this interpretation, granting citizenship to a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents who were not U.S. citizens. This decision established a precedent which leaves little room for reinterpretation.
The President’s argument hinges on a selective and self-serving reinterpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The sweeping language of the executive order excludes from eligibility the children of undocumented immigrants as well as children of legal nonimmigrants, such as H-1B/L-1/TN workers, F-1 students, and other temporary residents. By placing the citizenship of these U.S.-born children in jeopardy, the order creates great uncertainty for immigrant families who have long contributed to the U.S. economy and society. And for a President who claims to champion merit and hard work, this order is a harsh blow to those who exemplify those very ideals. Many of these individuals, particularly those in H-1B status, have spent a decade or more navigating the labyrinthine immigration system, paying taxes, and contributing to their communities, only to face the prospect of their children inheriting the same uncertainty and lengthy delays that they themselves endured. By erecting new barriers to their children’s inclusion, it undermines the foundation of a nation built on the promise of opportunity and equality for all.
This EO will undoubtedly face swift and intense legal challenges; the ACLU has already filed suit. No stroke of a pen in the West Wing can override the 14th Amendment, and it is all but certain that the courts will strike this order down as unconstitutional.
TOI Article Links below:
Quoted by the Times of India in its article titled, “Citizenship by birth to be curtailed by incoming US President Trump, will impact 1 million Indians in green card queue”
I was quoted by the Times of India in its article titled, “Citizenship by birth to be curtailed by incoming US President Trump, will impact 1 million Indians in green card queue”:
Ashwin Sharma, immigration attorney said, “The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ For over a century, courts have consistently interpreted this clause to mean that all children born on U.S. soil are citizens, so long as their parents are within the bounds of US law. Documented migrants, like those on H-1B, L-1 (intra company transfers), and F-1 (international students) visas, clearly fall into this category. Therefore, I am quite certain this proposed executive order would not hold up in court and their children would be entitled to birthright citizenship.”
Interviewed on Canada’s RedFM Radio on the significant increase in migrants entering the United States from Canada
I was interviewed by Mr. Rishi Nagar on Canada’s RedFM Radio (Punjabi language) about the significant increase in migrants entering the United States from Canada without legal authorization. While still a drop in the bucket compared to those along the Mexico-U.S. border, CBP encounters on the northern border have surged from 27,180 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 to almost 190,000 in FY2023—a nearly 600% increase. Encounters in FY2024 are on pace to surpass that record.
Quoted in CBC article on Canada’s Successful Tech Strategy in which it Outsmarted the U.S. by Poaching 10,000 STEM H-1B Visa Holders in Less Than 48 Hours
“At the very least, Canadians have brought to light the fact that there are other, smarter countries with better immigration policies that actually value science, technology, engineering and math,” said immigration lawyer Ashwin Sharma of the Sharma Law Office in Jacksonville, Fla.
“Perhaps the U.S. will start doing the same.”
Sharma also acknowledged that the open nature of the Canadian work permit, coupled with the higher salaries generally on offer in U.S. tech industries, may mean that not all applicants are looking to move to Canada on a long-term basis.
“It could be that the H1-B workers are coming over for a short period of time to perhaps kill off some unemployment period of time,” he said.
“It remains to be seen how many will remain in Canada.”
Canada’s Tech Talent Strategy: A Model for Reform in the U.S. Immigration System
In an effort to augment its technological sector, the Canadian government, under the banner of its Tech Talent Strategy, is launching an exclusive open work permit stream for U.S. H-1B specialty occupation visa holders. This initiative, slated to commence on July 16, 2023, promises to offer up to 10,000 of these highly-skilled professionals a flexible work permit to work in Canada, for up to three years. Spouses and dependents of the principal applicants would not be counted towards the 10,000 number, and would also eligible to apply for temporary Canadian resident visas, including work or study permits, as required.
The Tech Talent Strategy, while a significant step forward, still lacks key details and presents certain restrictions. The program is currently set to run for a year or until it hits the ceiling of only 10,000 applications. A noteworthy omission in the Canadian strategy is the non-inclusion of F-1 OPT STEM workers in this initiative. This demographic, a significant number of whom have earned their STEM Master’s degrees from U.S. institutions – could have been a substantial asset to the Canadian tech sector. The integration of these innovative, committed professionals could have presented Canada with the opportunity not only to tap into a significant reservoir of young and motivated individuals but also to potentially secure their lifelong loyalty, as many have been consistently overlooked for H-1B visas due to the fraud-riddled quagmire that the Fiscal Year H-1B Cap lottery process has devolved into, thanks to its ill-conceived “digital” transition under the outgoing Trump Administration.
The unveiling of Canada’s Tech Talent Strategy highlights the shortcomings of the U.S.’s immigration policy, especially regarding the attraction and retention of highly skilled tech professionals. Our own policy continues to be entangled in a web of bureaucratic complexities as well as archaic measures and quotas, leading to insufficient H-1B quota numbers and prolonged green card waiting periods, which disproportionately impact Indian nationals.
Our own purported “merit-based” immigration policy, amounting to a mere 15% of all U.S. green cards issued annually, is woefully inadequate, allocating a meager 2,000 or 2,500 green cards to Indian professionals each year, including their spouses and children under 21. Meanwhile, a staggering backlog of approximately 900,000 other Indian applicants remains in agonizing limbo, condemned to endure a wait that is projected to extend for decades.
These extensive processing times, particularly for the very individuals who make monumental contributions to the U.S. Tech Sector’s triumph, not only repel talent but also serve as an unequivocal testament to a system in dire need of comprehensive reform. The stark disparity between our policy and those implemented by other nations underscores the pressing urgency for immigration reform in the U.S.
Ashwin Sharma interviewed by News4Jax’s I-TEAM on on the Legality of the Biden Admin’s Decision to Land “Migrant Flights” in Jacksonville, FL
“With such a divide in opinions, mostly along party lines, News4Jax looked at the legal grounds with immigration attorney Ashwin Sharma.
“The facilities in Texas and these other border states are substantially overwhelmed. So I assume that that’s why they’re having to go to non-border states like Florida,” attorney Ashwin Sharma said.
Sharma said Florida, like other states, must follow immigration law which is federal law and President Joe Biden’s border policy is to relocate unaccompanied minors to a safe shelter while their cases are being adjudicated.
Leaders and interpretations have changed from President Donald Trump to President Biden, but he says immigration law has for the most part stayed the same.
“I’m not sure that there’s an all-expenses-paid bus that brings people in the US, but the simple fact is that they are here,” Sharma said. “They are at the border. They are coming past the border and at this point you know our policy, our immigration policy, to an extent has to adjudicate the merit of each individual’s claims.”
Sharma said some of the migrants have the potential to be legal American citizens.
“Every case is unique, if their claims are legitimate then they qualify under our laws,” Sharma said.”
Ashwin Sharma quoted by the Times of India on USCIS’s latest Policy Memo, a Major Victory for H-1B Consulting Firms/Employees
I was quoted today in a Times of India article on USCIS’s issuance of a game-changing new policy memorandum yesterday in which it rescinds and replaces two previous policy memoranda (2010, 2018) regarding the adjudication of H-1B petitions for professionals assigned to third-party job sites.
Among its other directives, the memo instructs USCIS officers to stop requiring H-1B employers to provide job itineraries for H-1B candidates as well as private contractual documentation between third-party client/vendor companies. The memo advises USCIS officers to refrain from issuing ridiculously short approval durations in these cases (as little as 1-2 months). The memo also makes it easier for an H-1B employer to demonstrate an eligible Employer-Employee relationship with its H-1B employee.
In summary: though USCIS still maintains arrows in its quiver to target the H-1B program, the new guidance represents extremely positive news for H-1B stakeholders, particularly those within the consulting industry. The policy guidance is effective immediately, and applies to any pending or new requests for H-1B classification, including motions on and appeals of revocations and denials of H-1B classification.
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
Immigration Update: H-1B & H-4 Visa Processing Delays and New Social Media Vetting Standards
We are monitoring significant scheduling changes for H-1B and H-4 visa appointments, with interviews originally set for mid-December 2025 now being cancelled and moved as far out as April 2026.
These disruptions appear tied to the Department of State’s new mandatory online presence review, effective December 15, 2025, which requires H-1B and H-4 visa applicants at consular posts to set their social media accounts to a public setting.
By way of background, in June 2025, the State Department rolled out a similar framework for F, M, and J students and exchange visitors, and the inclusion of H-1B and H-4 applicants marks the first expansion of that policy. The Department has indicated that this online presence review covers:
The recent announcement does not describe the exact standard Consular Officers will use when reviewing H-1B and H-4 online presence. However, H categories are being folded into the policy already in place for F, M, and J applicants, and several details about that policy were described in media reporting in the spring regarding a June 2025 State Department cable to consular posts.
According to the State Department’s previous cable, Consular Officers are instructed as follows:
If Consular Officers identify information they view as derogatory, they can refuse the application outright or require the applicant to appear for a follow-up interview. Discovery of such content can also trigger additional review to determine whether the foreign national will respect U.S. laws and engage only in activities consistent with their nonimmigrant status.
Media outlets that reportedly reviewed the State Department cable addressing the online presence policy as applied to H-1B and H-4 applicants indicate that the key focus for these categories is whether the applicant has been responsible for, or complicit in, the “censorship or attempted censorship” of U.S. citizens at any point in their employment or personal history.
Employers and affected foreign nationals should expect that H-1B and H-4 visa appointment availability will tighten as consular posts absorb the additional work associated with the online presence review.
The new vetting standards increase the likelihood that some applicants will be flagged for lengthy background checks and additional security review. In practice, this can mean:
H-1B visa applicants facing possible delays should stay in close contact with their employer and immigration counsel. Any foreign national planning international travel, whether they already hold a valid visa or will need to apply for a new one, should review these online presence issues and timing risks carefully before finalizing plans to travel abroad.