Immigration Law Review - UK and USA

In early 2025, shortly after President Donald Trump's inauguration for his second term, the administration revived and expanded an expedited removal policy originally implemented in 2019 during his first term. This policy, codified under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), allows immigration officers to deport noncitizens without a full hearing if they are deemed inadmissible upon arrival or within 100 air miles of the U.S. border and cannot establish credible fear of persecution. The revived policy broadened its scope dramatically: it authorized expedited removals for any noncitizen anywhere in the United States who had been present for less than two years, regardless of proximity to the border, provided they lacked valid entry documents or made material misrepresentations. Immigrant rights organizations, including Make the Road New York (a New York-based advocacy group representing low-income immigrant communities), along with co-plaintiffs such as ...

A nationwide class action was filed on March 23, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (No. 1:25-cv-10676-BEM) by four noncitizen plaintiffs (proceeding under pseudonyms D.V.D., M.M., E.F.D., and O.C.G.) represented by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and Human Rights First. The plaintiffs challenged a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, originating from a secret February 18, 2025 internal directive, that authorized the rapid removal of individuals with final orders of removal to “third countries”—nations other than those designated in their removal orders or their countries of citizenship/nationality—without prior written notice or a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA). The policy was formalized in DHS/ICE “Guidance” memoranda dated March 30, 2025, and July 9, 2025. ...

On November 19, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking to rescind the 2022 public charge ground of inadmissibility regulations. Background Public charge has been part of federal immigration law since 1882, applying to people seeking visas abroad or green cards in the United States, with exemptions for refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian categories. In 1999, the Clinton administration formally defined a public charge as someone “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence,” measured by receipt of cash assistance (e.g., TANF, SSI) or long-term institutionalization at government expense. This definition aimed to counter public confusion and remained in place until Trump’s first term. In 2019, DHS under Trump broadened the definition to cover people who used specific benefits (including non-emergency Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance) for more than 12 months in a 36‑month period, while...

The 2025 UK Immigration White Paper,  Restoring Control over the Immigration System , introduced significant reforms to how migrants can settle in the UK. Settlement will no longer be granted automatically after a fixed period. Instead, migrants will need to earn it by demonstrating sustained good conduct, contribution and integration. In November, 2025, the Home Office issued a consultation paper , titled "A Fairer Pathway to Settlement: statement and accompanying consultation on earned settlement" (Command Paper CP 1448) on Earned Settlement. The consultation period ran from 20 November 2025 to  12 February 2026. CP 1448 proposes a major reform to the route to settlement in the UK, which goes by the moniker “Indefinite Leave to Remain” (“ILR”). The core shift moves from an automatic, time-based system (typically 5 years of lawful residence on qualifying routes) to an "earned settlement" model, where permanent status is treated as a privilege earned through sus...

The case, Moody et al. v. Mayorkas et al. , No. 1:24-cv-00762, originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado before Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney. It was filed on March 19, 2024, by plaintiffs Samantha Moody (a Canadian EB-5 investor residing in Colorado with conditional permanent residency), the American Immigrant Investor Alliance (AIIA, a nonprofit advocating for EB-5 investors), and IT Service Alliance (ITServe, a trade group representing over 2,200 IT companies reliant on H-1B visas). The defendants were officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), initially Alejandro Mayorkas and Ur M. Jaddou, later substituted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) as Kristi Noem (Secretary of DHS) and Joseph B. Edlow (Director of USCIS). The dispute centered on USCIS's Final Rule, published on January 31, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 6194), which adjusted fees for various immigration benefits, including significant incre...

The case, Mukherji v. Miller , No. 4:24-CV-3170 (D. Neb. Jan. 28, 2026), involves plaintiff Anahita Mukherji, an Indian national and journalist, who filed a Form I-140 immigrant petition for alien worker seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability under the EB-1A category pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h). Mukherji submitted her petition on March 8, 2024, self-petitioning based on her accomplishments in journalism. To qualify for EB-1A, a petitioner must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that they are among the small percentage at the very top of their field. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) require evidence of either a one-time major international award or at least three of ten specified criteria, such as published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications, original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly articles, judging the work of others, and high salary...

The Kazarian framework (often called the "Kazarian two-part analysis" or "two-step approach") refers to a key adjudication method used by USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) for certain employment-based immigrant petitions, particularly EB-1A (aliens of extraordinary ability), and sometimes applied to related categories like EB-1B (outstanding professors/researchers) or EB-2 National Interest Waivers. It originates from the 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Kazarian v. USCIS , 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In that case, the court reviewed USCIS's denial of an EB-1A petition for a theoretical physicist. The ruling criticized USCIS for imposing extra-regulatory requirements during the initial evidence evaluation (e.g., demanding that scholarly articles themselves be "extraordinary" or considering citation impact prematurely). The court emphasized that USCIS cannot add novel substantive hurdles beyond the regulations at t...

The India-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA), formally announced in January 2026 during a joint summit in New Delhi, marks a significant step in bilateral relations, focusing on trade, investment, and services. While the agreement primarily addresses economic aspects, in parallel with the FTA, India and the EU have announced a mobility and migration agreement and a broader mobility framework aimed at enhancing legal pathways for Indian students and skilled workers, without changing the underlying Schengen/legal architecture. However, it's important to note that the FTA does not overhaul EU immigration laws fundamentally—these remain governed by EU-wide regulations (like the Schengen Visa Code) and individual member states' national policies. Instead, it introduces commitments to streamline processes without altering core legal frameworks. Below, I'll address your specific questions based on the details of the agreement. Will It Become Easier for Indian Citizens to Get Schengen...