US Immigration News

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued an interim final rule giving officers the discretion to deny, rather than simply reject, a benefit request found to have an invalid signature after the case has been accepted for processing.

Why this Matters

Previously, requests with invalid signatures were typically rejected and returned with the fee. Under the new rule, if the USCIS catches the signature problem only after the case is in adjudication, the agency may deny the case outright and retain the filing fee.

What Invalidates a Signature

The USCIS has flagged the following as an invalid signature:

• A signature copied and pasted as an image from another document
• A stamped signature
• A signature generated by signature software
• A typewritten signature
• A signature placed by anyone other than the requestor (including attorneys, preparers, or interpreters)
• A missing or incorrectly placed signature

Importantly, scanned, faxed, or photocopied reproductions of an original wet-ink signature remain acceptable. Meaning, it is not required to submit the original signed document to the USCIS, but the requester should retain the original for their records.

Ensuring a Proper Signature

The USCIS considers a “valid signature” generally to consist of any handwritten mark or sign made by a requestor in the signature line of a particular form. A thumbprint in place of a written signature is also acceptable, and even an “X” can sometimes suffice. If a requestor uses an “X,” then the USCIS usually will want to ensure that the individual consistently uses an “X.”

Best practices for ensuring a proper signature include:

• Personally sign each form by hand in ink. Do not paste in a signature image or use an electronic signature program.
• Sign each form individually, even when filing multiple petitions.
• Employers filing high volumes of I-129 or I-140 petitions should review internal signature procedures to ensure each form bears an original wet signature.
• If an individual is unsure whether a signing practice complies, ask before filing.

Conclusion

Often, it is little details that can have a big impact on the quality or even the outcome of an immigration filing. Working with a qualified immigration attorney can help ensure that your filing is complete. Individuals with questions about how this rule affects a pending or upcoming filing are welcome to schedule a consultation with a Murthy Law Firm attorney for further guidance.

 

Copyright © 2016-2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post USCIS May Now Deny Benefit Requests with Invalid Signatures appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated USCIS policies that imposed a hold on asylum and immigration-benefit adjudications for applicants from the Travel Ban / “high-risk” countries, including the January 1, 2026 memorandum extending the hold to additional countries.

The post Federal Court Strikes Down USCIS Benefit Adjudication Pause appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is one of the world’s most respected humanitarian medical organizations, providing lifesaving care to people based solely on need—regardless of race, religion, nationality, gender, or political affiliation. Operating independently and impartially, MSF sends teams of doctors, nurses, logisticians, epidemiologists, and other specialists to some of the most challenging environments on earth, often arriving where conflict, natural disasters, disease outbreaks, or displacement have left communities without access to essential medical care.

The organization’s ability to respond quickly and effectively is particularly critical during outbreaks of infectious diseases such as cholera, measles, yellow fever, and Ebola. As concerns grow globally over recurring Ebola outbreaks and the threat they pose to vulnerable populations, MSF remains on the front lines—establishing emergency treatment centers, conducting vaccination campaigns, strengthening disease surveillance, improving water and sanitation systems, and providing the medical expertise necessary to contain the spread of deadly infections.

MSF’s work saves countless lives every year and offers hope to people facing extraordinary circumstances. Their commitment to delivering care directly to those who need it most, often in remote or dangerous settings, exemplifies humanitarian service at its finest.

Sheela Murthy and the MurthyNAYAK Foundation have made a modest contribution in support of this important work. While any single donation may seem small in the face of such immense challenges, the collective power of thousands of modest gifts enables organizations like MSF to respond rapidly to emergencies, deploy medical teams, purchase critical supplies, and sustain lifesaving programs around the world. Meaningful change is often made possible not by a few large contributions, but by many individuals coming together to support a cause that truly matters.

 

Copyright © 2026, Murthy Law Firm. All Rights Reserved

The post Fighting Outbreaks, Saving Lives: Supporting Doctors Without Borders appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

An overview of employment-based green card options in the EB1 category is offered by Murthy Law Firm attorneys in this podcast recommended for U.S. employers of foreign nationals, broadcasted 03.Jun.2026. Topics include Extraordinary Ability, Outstanding Professor / Researcher, and Multinational Executive.

The MP3 is available here and soon can be found in the archive of our podcasts and teleconferences on iTunes. Find more topics under the MurthyAudio tab on our homepage.

 

 

         

The post MurthyAudio: The ABCs of EB1 – Extraordinary Ability, Outstanding Professor / Researcher, and Multinational Executive appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

While the reported U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reversal and clarification are encouraging, it remains unclear how the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will apply the guidance in the memo. Adjustment of status (AOS) remains a discretionary benefit, and USCIS officers will continue to review each case on an individual basis. Therefore, anyone filing for AOS should consult with a qualified immigration attorney to determine the best course of action for their case. (02.Jun.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post I heard that the DHS reversed course on the recent 21.May.2025 AOS memo and now says that most immigrants seeking green cards will not need to leave the U.S. to complete the process. Can you please clarify? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

After widespread concern over last week’s USCIS policy memo, DHS now says most immigrants seeking green cards will not need to leave the U.S. to complete the process. The agency clarified that qualified applicants should see little impact from the new guidance.

The post DHS Walks Back Green Card Departure Requirement appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

If you are waiting for a green card, you have probably heard about the Visa Bulletin or waiting for a “priority date” to be “current.” For many, these technical terms keep them in the dark. The reality is more straightforward than it sounds. This article breaks down what the U.S. Department of State (DOS) Visa Bulletin actually is, why it exists, and how to read it without needing a law degree.

The Big Picture: Green Cards are Limited

Each year, the U.S. government has a limited number of green cards to give out: 140,000 are employment-based and 226,000 are family-based (parents, spouses, and children under 21 of U.S. citizens are not included in this limit). That national pool is then divided up by subcategories. But within this total amount there is a per-country cap. No single country can use more than a fixed percentage of the green cards available. That means demand can far exceed supply, and when it does, the government has to put people in line to wait for their green cards.

Think of it as a Line with a Ticket Number

The easiest way to picture this system is to imagine a deli counter. Walk in, take a numbered ticket, and wait for your number to be called. Every employment-based and family-based green card applicant gets a ticket number when they enter the system. In immigration terms, that ticket number is called the priority date.

There is not just one line, either. There is a separate line for each employment-based category, and within each category, a separate line for each country of birth. So, an EB1 applicant born in India is in a different line from an EB2 applicant born in India, who is in a different line from an EB2 applicant born in Germany. Every line moves at its own pace, depending on how many people are in it and how many green cards are available for that category and country in a given year.

How You Get Your Ticket Number

Your priority date, the ticket number, depends on the type of case being filed. For EB1 and EB2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) employment-based cases, the priority date is the date the I-140 immigrant petition is filed with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). For standard EB2 and EB3 cases that require PERM labor certification, the priority date is the date the PERM application is filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). For family-based cases, the priority date is the date the I-130 immigrant petition is filed. Once you have a priority date, you have your spot in line which is “locked-in” once your immigrant petition (either I-140 or I-130) is approved. From that point on, the only thing left to do is wait for the government to call your number.

Why it Takes Longer for Some Countries

The per-country cap is the reason wait times vary so dramatically depending on where someone was born. For countries with small numbers of applicants, the line moves quickly, and the priority date may be current almost immediately. For countries like India and China, where the number of people waiting is far larger than the number of green cards available per country each year, the line stretches out for years and sometimes decades. The cap is the same regardless of country population, so high-demand countries fill their annual allotment quickly and the rest of the applicants must wait their turn.

A Quick Note on Cross Chargeability

Country of birth is what determines which line a person stands in, not country of citizenship. However, there is a useful rule called cross chargeability that can help some married couples and their children. If a married applicant was born in a backlogged country, but their spouse was born in a country with a faster-moving line, the couple can be “charged” to the spouse’s country of birth for green card purposes. In practical terms, that means a spouse born in, for example, Canada can pull an Indian-born partner into the much shorter Canadian line, and both can move forward together. Cross chargeability also applies in certain situations involving children. This is one of the few legitimate ways to skip ahead in the green card queue, and it is worth raising with counsel any time spouses or children were born in different countries.

Enter the Visa Bulletin

So how does anyone know when their ticket number has been called? That is exactly the Visa Bulletin’s role. The DOS publishes the Visa Bulletin every month, and it shows, for each category and each country, how far down the line the government has gotten. When the date listed in the bulletin reaches or passes your priority date, your number has been called. That is what immigration lawyers mean when they say a priority date is “current.” It means a green card is available for you and you can take the next step, which is filing for adjustment of status if you are in the United States, or applying for an immigrant visa if you are abroad.

How to Read the Visa Bulletin

When you open the Visa Bulletin, you will see charts organized by category, with rows for EB1, EB2, EB3, and so on. The columns list countries, including separate columns for high-demand countries like India and China, and a catch-all column for everywhere else. The cell where your category meets your country shows a date. If your priority date is earlier than the date listed, your number has been called. If your priority date is later than the date listed, you keep waiting until the next bulletin.

There is one extra wrinkle. The bulletin actually shows two separate charts: the Final Action Dates chart and the Dates for Filing chart. The Final Action Dates chart shows the priority dates that have actually been called for green card approval, meaning the government can issue a green card right now to people with those dates. The Dates for Filing chart shows a slightly earlier point in the line, telling applicants they can go ahead and submit the green card application paperwork even though the green card itself is not yet ready to be issued. Filing earlier lets people lock in certain benefits and gets the application process started.

Each month, the USCIS decides which of the two charts can be used for adjustment of status filings and announces it on its website. For consular cases, the Final Action Chart always governs.

The Bottom Line

The Visa Bulletin can look intimidating, but the underlying logic is simple. Green cards are limited. Applicants take a ticket. The Visa Bulletin shows whose number has been called. Knowing your category, your priority date, and how to read the right chart turns a confusing document into a useful one. The Murthy Law Firm attorneys are available to consult on priority dates, cross chargeability, and strategy for navigating the green card process.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post Visa Bulletin and Priority Dates Made Easy appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The Treaty Trader / Investor Visa (nonimmigrant E classification) is designed for the benefit of nationals of a country with which the U.S. has a treaty of commerce and navigation, or a similar agreement. The E classification is divided into two categories. E-1 is for individuals coming to the U.S. to carry on substantial trade. E-2 is for individuals coming to the U.S. to invest a substantial amount of capital or to direct and develop the business operations of an entity in which the individual has already invested funds. A person may qualify as the principal trader or investor or as an employee of a trader or investor company having the same nationality. There are no numerical limitations on E-1/E-2 admissions.

What Countries have Bilateral Treaties with the U.S.?

The list of countries with bilateral treaties with the U.S. is actually very long. The countries range from Japan to Australia, and most of the European Union, to some less-obvious nations, such as Iran, Pakistan, and Taiwan. Most of the countries listed have treaties that cover both the E-1 and E-2 categories, but some only cover one or the other.

Note that the list of treaty countries changes often as new treaties are signed and ratified continually. You can find the most recent list on the U.S. Department of State (DOS) website.

Requirements Applying to Both E-1 and E-2

The individual applying for the E-2 visa must be a national of a treaty country. Additionally, if the person is employed and doing business on behalf of a company, the employing company must be from the same treaty country. If this is the case, the company’s nationality almost always is determined by its ownership, though there are special rules for publicly traded companies. A company must be at least 50 percent owned by individuals with nationality from the treaty country and who are not lawful permanent residents of the U.S. If these owners are in the U.S., they must be in E-1 or E-2 status.

Additionally, in general, unskilled workers usually do not qualify for the E-1 or E-2 category. Rather, these visas are intended for executives, managers, or others with skills and experience that are essential to the efficient operation of the enterprise. Recent adjudication trends also place increased emphasis on documentation of lawful source of funds, business viability, and compliance with evolving security and vetting procedures.

Additional Requirements Specific to E-1 Traders

The international trade must be substantial in the sense that there is a sizable and continuous flow of trade, and more than half of the trade activity must be between the U.S. and the treaty country. The trade may be in a variety of areas such as products, services, or technology, but these items must already exist.

Additional Requirements Specific to E-2 Investors

For E-2 investors, the investment must come from the investor and the money must be “at risk;” so, for example, it cannot be a loan that is secured by the assets of the business itself. The investment also must be “substantial,” meaning that it is enough to provide a sufficient infusion of capital or credit to permit the business undertaking to be successful. There is no fixed minimum dollar amount; the amount is evaluated in proportion to the business. Additionally, the investment must be considered active; this means that a bank account, undeveloped land or stocks, or a not-for-profit organization will not be sufficient. Lastly, it is important to note that the E-2 visa holder can be an investor, or an employee of the individual or company that is making the investment.

Recent Developments Affecting E-2 Investors and Their Families

There have been a few developments surrounding the treaty visas in recent years. For one, spouses of E visa holders are now given work authorization incident to status, meaning they do not need to apply separately for employment authorization.

The most significant update comes into play when someone obtains citizenship of a country that has a bilateral treaty with the U.S. If a person obtains citizenship to be considered a citizen of a country that has a bilateral treaty with the US, the person must be “domiciled” in the treaty country for a “continuous period of not less than three years at any point before applying” for the visa. In other words, the individual actually has to live there for a continuous period of three years in order to qualify.

Conclusion

In summary, the E-1 and E-2 visa categories remain valuable options for traders and investors seeking to engage in business activities in the United States. However, evolving policies, including updated adjudication practices and the domicile requirement, make it increasingly important for applicants to stay informed and plan carefully. By understanding both the longstanding requirements and recent developments, individuals and businesses can better position themselves for success in obtaining and maintaining E visa status.

While some aspects of immigration have changed significantly in the years since MurthyDotCom began publishing articles in 1994, there is much that is still the same. From time to time, we at the Murthy Law Firm refer our clients to articles, like this one, which remains relevant.

 

Copyright © 2012-2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post Overview: E Visas for Traders and Investors appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

It remains unclear how the USCIS will apply this guidance and whether it could affect adjustment of status (AOS) applications that are already pending. However, based on reports from recent adjustment interviews, applicants may be asked to explain why they pursued AOS in the United States rather than consular processing abroad. USCIS may request this information during an interview or through a request for evidence (RFE). (27.May.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post USCIS recently issued guidance emphasizing that AOS is discretionary and for extraordinary circumstances and that individuals seeking permanent residence generally should apply through consular processing. How could this affect my already pending I-485 application? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The U.S. State Dept has issued all available EB2 immigrant visas chargeable to India for FY2026. No more visas in this category will be issued until 01.Oct.2026, when FY2027 limits reset. Affected applicants must wait until the new fiscal year. For more visit.

The post India EB2 Visa Limit Exhausted for FY2026 appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

On May 21, 2026, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, reminding its officers and the public that adjustment of status (AOS) under INA § 245 is an act of administrative grace, not an entitlement. Even applicants who satisfy every statutory eligibility requirement are not guaranteed approval. This memo signals that USCIS intends to apply heightened scrutiny in green card adjudications going forward.

What the Memo Says

The USCIS reaffirms the longstanding legal principle, rooted in Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent dating back to Matter of Blas (1974), that AOS is an “extraordinary” form of relief that allows an applicant to skip the ordinary consular immigrant visa process without leaving the United States. Because it circumvents the standard pathway to permanent residence, USCIS stresses it was never designed to be freely granted and must be reserved for meritorious cases.

The memo emphasizes that the burden of proof rests squarely on the applicant to demonstrate why a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted.

Key Factors Officers Will Weigh

The memo instructs USCIS officers to consider the totality of the circumstances, including:

• Immigration compliance history: violations of nonimmigrant status conditions or parole terms are treated as significant negative factors
• Failure to depart: if an applicant remained in the U.S. beyond the authorized period rather than pursuing consular processing abroad, this weighs against them
• Fraud or misrepresentation: any prior false testimony or fraud with USCIS or any government agency
• Whether the original admission or parole was lawfully obtained under the laws and policies in effect at the time
• Conduct inconsistent with visa or parole purpose: especially activity that suggests the applicant always intended to remain permanently, when they could have pursued an immigrant visa abroad
• Family ties, moral character, and other positive equities: these must be weighed against the negatives, but the absence of adverse factors alone is not sufficient to show the “unusual or outstanding equities” needed to tip the balance

Important Note on Dual-Intent Visa Holders

USCIS clarifies that maintaining lawful status in a dual-intent nonimmigrant category (such as H1B or L-1) is not, by itself, enough to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. Officers still may deny AOS even for applicants in valid status.

New Denial Notice Requirement

When USCIS denies an AOS application based on an unfavorable exercise of discretion, the denial notice must now include a written analysis identifying the positive and negative factors considered and explaining why the negative factors outweigh the positive ones.

What this Means for Applicants

This memo is a strong signal that the USCIS will more freely use its discretionary authority to deny I-485 applications even from otherwise-eligible applicants. Those who entered on parole, overstayed a visa, worked without authorization, or have other immigration compliance issues face elevated risk. USCIS has also indicated it may issue future category-specific guidance targeting particular AOS pathways or populations.

If you have a pending or planned I-485 application, we strongly encourage you to consult with an experienced immigration attorney to assess your case in light of this new policy.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post NewsFlash! USCIS Reinforces that Adjustment of Status is Discretionary – Not a Right appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Millions of Americans continue to live without reliable access to dental, vision, and general medical care. For many families, even routine treatment can become an impossible choice between healthcare and basic daily necessities.

Recently, we watched the powerful CBS 60 Minutes feature on Remote Area Medical (RAM), which highlighted the organization’s large-scale pop-up clinics and the extraordinary volunteers who provide free medical, dental, and vision care to underserved communities across the United States. The segment was both moving and inspiring.

Founded on the belief that healthcare should never depend on geography, income, or circumstance, RAM works tirelessly to remove barriers to care by bringing together medical professionals, volunteers, and local communities. Their mission is simple yet profound: to ensure that people receive essential healthcare services with dignity, compassion, and respect.

The origins of RAM are deeply personal. Founder Stan Brock conceived the idea after suffering a serious injury while living among the Wapishana people in Guyana, South America. Isolated from medical assistance that was nearly a 26-day journey away, he experienced firsthand the devastating consequences of inaccessible healthcare. From that experience grew a vision that would eventually help millions.

As Stan Brock once reflected: “My vision for Remote Area Medical developed when I suffered a personal injury while living among the Wapishana Indians in Guyana, South America. I was isolated from medical care, which was about a 26-day journey away.”

The MurthyNAYAK Foundation recently made a modest donation in support of RAM’s mission and the people they serve. We are honored to contribute, in a small way, to an organization whose work restores health, dignity, and hope to so many who otherwise might go without care. In a world where healthcare inequity remains a harsh reality, organizations like RAM remind us that compassion, commitment, and collective action still have the power to transform lives.

If you would like to make a donation or volunteer, please visit: https://www.ramusa.org/about-ram/

 

Image: Marissa Highfill (Courtesy Remote Area Medical)

 

Copyright © 2026, Murthy Law Firm. All Rights Reserved

The post Bringing Healthcare to Those Who Need It Most appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Of all the immigration filings an employer makes on behalf of a foreign employee, the PERM Labor Certification is the one in which small mistakes can cause the most damage. The PERM process is known to be exacting, and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) strictly enforces the accuracy of Form ETA-9089 to ensure that it matches the underlying recruitment, the prevailing wage determination, and the company’s records exactly. The consequences of a single typo can be impossible to fix. This article explains why that is and what an employer can do when a typo slips into a filed PERM application.

PERM Holds Employers to a Strict Standard

The DOL has been clear for a long time that PERM applications must be complete and accurate when filed. The regulation at 20 CFR § 656.11(b) says that the DOL will not accept or act on requests to modify an ETA-9089 after it has been filed. This was affirmed by the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) in 2013 in the case of Matter of Sushi Shogun where the employer entered a prevailing wage of $10.04 per hour on the form 9089 instead of $10.14 as listed on the prevailing wage determination. Despite the minor typo and no other substantive impact on the case, BALCA still affirmed the denial, as explained in the MurthyDotCom NewsBrief, Recent BALCA Decision Makes PERM Process Tougher (12.Jun.2013). This means that the DOL is not weighing whether a mistake caused real harm. It is checking whether the form is accurate. If the answer is no, the application is in serious trouble regardless of how minor the error looks or how clean the rest of the file is.

Once Filed, the 9089 Cannot be Corrected

Employers often are surprised to learn that the form 9089 cannot be edited once it has been submitted. There is no amendment form, no correction request, and no informal way to flag the error to a DOL officer. The application is locked the moment it is filed. It is irrelevant if all the supporting documents are correct.

Withdrawal and Refiling, if the Recruitment is Still Good

There is one solution that works when an error is caught early, and that is to withdraw the pending application and refile a corrected version, provided that the PERM recruitment for the position still is valid. PERM recruitment is valid for 180 days from the earliest recruitment step, so a case that still is inside that window can often be refiled without redoing the ads. Outside the 180-day window, withdrawal still may be needed, but the recruitment will have to be redone, causing a significant expense for the employer and a substantial delay for the foreign employee.

After a Denial: Reconsideration as a Limited Option

If the application has already been denied, the regulation allows the employer to file a request for reconsideration within 30 days. Reconsideration is not a mechanism for fixing typos, but it can give the employer a chance to argue that the DOL got the analysis wrong or that the alleged defect is not actually a defect.

There is also a strategic reason to file for reconsideration even when the chances of a reversal are not actually great. Under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), a foreign national in H1B status is eligible for one-year extensions beyond the standard six-year limit based on the PERM filing date or if a PERM application has been pending for at least 365 days. A pending reconsideration request keeps the PERM application alive for that purpose.

Whether reconsideration makes sense in a given case depends on the facts. Some considerations include how close the employee is to the six-year H1B mark, if the underlying error actually is defensible on the merits, and how the timing lines up with a possible refile. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, but the option is worth weighing carefully before walking away from a denied case.

Recent Common Examples

Recent examples show how unforgiving the process remains. One common example is where travel language listed on the prevailing wage request was not entered on the form 9089. Although DOL guidance has not been clear regarding this, the DOL repeatedly has denied form 9089 applications for this omission. A second example is when an employer relies on a credential evaluation to show that the beneficiary meets the minimum degree requirement but provides insufficient details regarding the evaluation used. In both situations, the problem is not necessarily that the employee is unqualified or that the job terms are improper. It is that information is missing from the application and thus resulting in a denial.

Conclusion

The PERM process rewards careful preparation and punishes carelessness in ways that other immigration filings do not. Every detail must be complete and accurate before the form 9089 is filed. Due to the exacting nature of the PERM process, it is often worthwhile to use the services of a qualified immigration attorney. The Murthy Law Firm routinely files PERM applications and our attorneys are available to consult on all PERM related matters.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post The Critical Need for Accuracy on a PERM Application appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Big development for employers and foreign nationals: O*NET recently placed Computer Systems Analysts (15-1211.00) back in Job Zone 4, reinforcing the position as one that normally requires at least a bachelor’s degree. That can create stronger positioning for H1B and expand PERM options.

The post Computer Systems Analysts Are Back in Job Zone 4! appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

No. The U.S. Department of Labor typically does not permit typographical error corrections for a filed ETA Form 9089. In some cases, if the recruitment advertisements are still valid, the employer may be able to withdraw the application and refile a corrected ETA Form 9089. (19.May.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post We realized after my company filed the ETA Form 9089 that there was a mistake on the application. Can it be corrected after filing? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

As long as the qualifying job offer underlying the approved Form I-140 immigrant petition remains valid, there is typically no specific deadline by which a person must file the Form I-485 application for adjustment of status after the priority date becomes current. (19.May.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post My EB1C priority date became current a few years ago, but I did not file my Form I-485 at that time. I later entered the U.S. in L1A status and planned to apply for adjustment of status with my family. Is there any issue with applying for a green card after waiting a few years after my priority date became current? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

Yes. In order to transfer the underlying basis of a pending Form I-485 application, the priority date generally must be current for your country of chargeability under the Final Action Dates chart in the U.S. Department of State Visa Bulletin for the category associated with the new Form I-140 petition. (19.May.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post I have a pending employment-based Form I-485 application based on a job offer from one employer. I understand that I may be able to transfer the underlying basis of the I-485 to either a different employment-based category or a new employer based on another approved Form I-140 petition. Does my priority date need to be current to make this request? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

A key requirement of the employment-based, fifth preference (EB5) immigrant visa category is that the foreign national investor be able to clearly and thoroughly document the lawful source of the investment funds. The sourcing of the investment funds can be quite tedious and oftentimes is the most challenging aspect of an immigrant petition by an alien entrepreneur (form I-526/E). Yet, this effort is vital to help ensure the case is approved.

Importance of Source of Funds

As outlined in the MurthyDotCom InfoArticle, Overview of the EB5 Immigrant Investor Category (11.May.2026), to qualify for a green card under the EB5 category, the foreign national must invest at least $1,050,000 in a U.S. commercial enterprise, or $800,000, if the business is located in a targeted employment area (TEA). Moreover, the EB5 investor must be the legal owner of the invested capital, and the investor must be able to prove to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that all of the capital was lawfully acquired.

Types of Investment Funds Allowed

Perhaps the most traditional source of funding is income obtained through an employer as part of one’s salary. Assuming this income is well documented and did not involve any unauthorized employment in the United States, it is possible that the “source of funds” component of the EB5 petition will be relatively straightforward. In practice, however, a great many EB5 investors acquire some or all of the investment funds from sources that can be more challenging to document.

Sale of Property or Assets

A foreign national is, of course, permitted to sell property or other assets to raise the funds necessary for the EB5 investment. But, in sourcing the funds, the USCIS is likely to look beyond the sale of said property or asset in verifying the lawful source of these funds. The EB5 investor should be able to document how the funds originally were acquired to purchase the property or asset in the first place. There is no official government guidance regarding how far back the investor must document the lawful source of funds used for the investment.

Gifts

Money obtained as a gift, such as from a close family member, can be used for EB5 investment purposes. There are a few points that must be kept in mind, however. First, the EB5 investor must be able to document that this is truly a gift, rather than a loan; the person providing the gift cannot expect to be repaid. Secondly, the investor will have to document that the gifting party obtained the funds lawfully. Finally, if a gift tax is owed, the USCIS may request evidence that it was paid.

Loans

Investment funds obtained through a loan typically can be used, whether the loan is secured by collateral assets or unsecured. For secured loans, the collateral assets must be sourced as well, while unsecured loans generally are subject to heightened scrutiny. The lender’s funds typically must be sourced as well, unless the lender is a chartered financial institution, in which case the sourcing typically ends at the lending institution itself. Investors should ensure loan terms do not restrict using the funds for at-risk investment purposes.

Documenting the Lawful Source of Funds

The type of evidence needed to document the lawful source of funds can vary tremendously from one EB5 case to the next, depending upon the form or forms of capital utilized to establish the new commercial enterprise. For example, if the EB5 investor is using income derived from a U.S. job, one would expect to evidence this with documents such as tax returns and pay stubs. These documents may need to be supplemented further with evidence that the investor had proper work authorization at the time the salary was earned. Salary earned while working abroad, especially in countries with less formalized tax records and payment histories, may have to be documented in other ways, such as through affidavits and employment verification letters.

Conclusion

The USCIS tends to examine all evidence related to source of funding closely in EB5 cases. The ability to document one’s source of funding meticulously in the I-526/E petition is paramount. Those interested in pursuing a green card through the EB5 immigrant investor program are welcome to contact the Murthy Law Firm by eMailing EB5@murthy.com or scheduling a consultation with a qualified EB5 attorney.

While some aspects of immigration have changed in significant ways in the years since MurthyDotCom began publishing articles in 1994, there is much that is still the same. From time to time, we at the Murthy Law Firm refer clients to articles, like this one, which remains relevant and has been updated for our readers.

 

Copyright © 2016-2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post Source of Investment Funds for EB5 Cases appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

DHS issued an interim final rule (effective 10.Jul.2026) allowing USCIS to deny immigration benefit requests found to have invalid signatures after acceptance. If denied, filing fees are not refunded. Sign forms correctly. Keep original signed documents securely. Comments due 10.Jul.2026 at regulations.gov (Docket USCIS-2026-0166). https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2026-09289

The post New USCIS Signature Rule appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released the June 2026 Visa Bulletin. There is some forward movement in select employment-based categories, while certain employment-based categories for India retrogress. All cutoff dates listed below refer to the final action chart (i.e., Chart A), unless otherwise specified.

Visa Bulletin SummaryEmployment-Based, First Preference (EB1) Category

In the EB1 category, China’s cutoff date remains at 01.Apr.2023, while India’s cutoff date retrogresses to 15.Dec.2022. The EB1 category remains current for all other countries of chargeability.

Employment-Based, Second Preference (EB2) Category

In the EB2 category, India’s cutoff date retrogresses to 01.Sep.2013. EB2 China still has a cutoff date of 01.Sep.2021. The EB2 cutoff date for all other countries is current for June 2026.

Employment-Based, Third Preference (EB3) Category

EB3 India’s cutoff date inches forward to 15.Dec.2013, and China’s EB3 cutoff date advances to 01.Aug.2021. The EB3 cutoff date for all other countries of chargeability remains at 01.Jun.2024.

EB3 Other Workers

In the EB3 Other Workers category, India’s cutoff date advances to 15.Dec.2013. For China, the cutoff date remains at 01.Apr.2019. The EB3 other workers category remains at a cutoff date of 01.Feb.2022 for all other countries of chargeability.

Employment-Based, Fourth Preference (EB4) Category

In the EB4 category, the cutoff date remains at 15.Jul.2022. This cutoff date also applies to the EB4 program for certain religious workers, which has been renewed through midnight of 30.Sep.2026. After that, if the program is not renewed by Congress, it will become unavailable.

Employment-Based, Fifth Preference (EB5) Category

The EB5 unreserved category for India remains at 01.May.2022, and China’s unreserved cutoff date remains at 22.Sep.2016. The EB5 category remains current for all other chargeability areas and for the three EB5 set-aside categories (rural, high unemployment, and infrastructure) across all countries.

Family-Based, Second-Preference (FB2A and FB2B) Category

In the FB2A family-based category, the cutoff date advances to 01.Jan.2025 for all countries. In the FB2B family-based category, the cutoff date advances to 22.Sep.2017 for all countries except Mexico and the Philippines.

Conclusion

The June Visa Bulletin states that “dates for filing and final action dates had been advanced across various immigrant visa categories in prior months” and warns that “retrogression may be necessary in the upcoming months” and that “visa categories may become ‘Unavailable’ prior to the end of the fiscal year if annual limits, category limits, or pro-rated per-country limits are reached. We will continue to monitor and report on movement and predictions related to the monthly visa bulletin. Subscribe to the free MurthyBulletin to receive weekly updates on the latest in U.S. immigration.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post June 2026 Visa Bulletin appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.