Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to End TPS for Haiti and Syria – What You Need to Know

The United States Supreme Court has issued a major immigration decision that could affect more than 350,000 Haitian nationals and over 6,000 Syrian nationals currently living and working in the United States under Temporary Protected Status (TPS), in the matter of Mullin v. Doe, 609 U.S. (2026).

In a 6-3 decision issued on June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the Trump Administration’s request to lift lower court injunctions that had temporarily prevented the government from terminating TPS designations for Haiti and Syria. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may now move forward with ending TPS while the underlying legal challenges continue through the courts.

This ruling creates significant uncertainty for thousands of families who have relied on TPS for years to live and work legally in the United States.

What Is Temporary Protected Status (TPS)?

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a humanitarian immigration program established by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA § 244) in 1990.

TPS allows nationals of designated countries to temporarily remain in the United States when returning home would be unsafe because of:

  • Armed conflict
  • Civil war
  • Natural disasters
  • Epidemics
  • Extraordinary and temporary humanitarian conditions

Individuals granted TPS generally receive:

  • Protection from deportation
  • Employment Authorization Documents (EADs)
  • Authorization to remain in the United States while TPS remains in effect

Importantly, TPS is temporary humanitarian protection. It does not provide lawful permanent residence or a direct path to U.S. citizenship.

Why Were Haiti and Syria Granted TPS?

Haiti was initially designated for TPS following the devastating 2010 earthquake, one of the deadliest natural disasters in the country’s history. Since then, Haiti has continued to experience:

  • Political instability
  • Widespread gang violence
  • Humanitarian crises
  • Natural disasters
  • Economic collapse

Syria received TPS because of its prolonged civil war, ongoing armed conflict, terrorism, and humanitarian catastrophe. Millions of Syrians have been displaced, and many areas remain unsafe despite changes in certain regions of the country.

What Did the Supreme Court Actually Decide?

It is important to understand what the Court did—and did not—decide.

The Supreme Court did not rule on whether the termination of TPS is legally valid.

Instead, the Court ruled that the government may proceed with ending TPS while the litigation challenging those decisions continues.

In practical terms, the ruling allows DHS to begin implementing TPS terminations before the federal courts issue a final decision on whether those terminations complied with the law.

What Does This Mean for TPS Holders?

If DHS proceeds with terminating TPS, many beneficiaries could eventually lose:

  • Protection from removal (deportation)
  • Employment authorization
  • Eligibility for benefits tied to TPS status

The decision affects approximately:

  1. 350,000+ Haitian TPS beneficiaries
  2. 6,000+ Syrian TPS beneficiaries

Many have lived in the United States for years, purchased homes, established careers, raised U.S. citizen children, and become integral members of their communities.

Do TPS Holders Have Other Immigration Options?

Possibly.

Every immigration case is unique, and many TPS holders may qualify for other forms of relief, including:

  • Family-based immigration petitions
  • Employment-based visas
  • Adjustment of status
  • Asylum or related humanitarian protections
  • VAWA petitions
  • U visas
  • Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS)
  • Other immigration benefits depending on individual circumstances

Because immigration laws are highly fact-specific, it is critical to obtain an individualized legal evaluation before making decisions regarding employment, travel, or remaining in the United States.

Why This Supreme Court Decision Matters

The Supreme Court’s order represents one of the most consequential immigration rulings affecting TPS holders in recent years. Although the litigation is not over, the decision gives the federal government authority to move forward with implementing TPS terminations before the courts decide whether those actions were lawful. For TPS holders, delaying legal advice could significantly limit future immigration options.

What Should You Do If You Have TPS?

If you currently have TPS from Haiti or Syria, you should:

  • Consult with an experienced immigration attorney immediately.
  • Determine whether you qualify for another immigration benefit.
  • Avoid relying solely on social media or unofficial information regarding TPS.
  • Keep your address updated with USCIS.
  • Monitor official announcements regarding TPS expiration dates and employment authorization.

Early planning can make a significant difference in preserving your legal options.

The Law Offices of Cindy Ramjattan-Paul, P.C. Can Help

Our firm has extensive experience helping individuals and families navigate complex immigration matters, including humanitarian relief, adjustment of status, family-based petitions, waivers, deportation defense, and federal immigration litigation.

If you have TPS or believe you may qualify for another immigration benefit, we encourage you to schedule a consultation as soon as possible.

Supreme Court Expands DHS Authority at the Border: What Green Card Holders Need to Know

On June 23, 2026, in the matter of Blanche v. Lau, 609 U.S. (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant immigration decision that affects lawful permanent residents (green card holders) returning to the United States after international travel.

What Changed?

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers do not need “clear and convincing evidence” at the border before treating certain returning green card holders as applicants for admission.

This means that if a lawful permanent resident has been accused or convicted of certain offenses—particularly crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs)—CBP may rely on evidence that becomes available after the border inspection, including later criminal convictions, when determining whether the individual should be treated as seeking admission to the United States.

The Case

The case involved a lawful permanent resident, Muk Choi Lau, who traveled abroad while criminal charges were pending in New Jersey. When he returned to the United States, he was allowed to physically enter the country on parole rather than being formally admitted. After he later pleaded guilty, the government initiated removal proceedings, arguing that he was inadmissible because of the conviction.

The Supreme Court concluded that immigration officers were not required to satisfy the higher “clear and convincing evidence” standard at the border before classifying him as an applicant for admission.

Importantly, the Court did not decide whether the offense itself qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude. That question was sent back to the lower courts.

What Does This Mean for Green Card Holders?

This decision gives DHS and CBP greater flexibility when evaluating returning lawful permanent residents who have pending criminal matters or criminal convictions.

However, the ruling does not mean that green card holders automatically lose their permanent resident status simply because they are accused of a crime.

Several important protections remain:

  • A green card holder is still entitled to due process.
  • The government must still prove removability during immigration proceedings.
  • A criminal accusation alone does not automatically result in deportation.
  • Each case depends on its own facts, the criminal statute involved, and the individual’s immigration history.

Before you travel;

If you are a green card holder and have:

  • A pending criminal case,
  • A prior arrest,
  • A criminal conviction,
  • A plea agreement, or
  • Any concerns about your immigration status,

do not travel internationally without first consulting an experienced immigration attorney.

A trip outside the United States could trigger complex immigration consequences that may not be obvious until you attempt to return.

We Can Help

The intersection of criminal and immigration law is one of the most complicated areas of U.S. immigration law. If you or a loved one has questions about traveling with a green card or the immigration consequences of a criminal case, we are here to help.

ALERT: New Temporary Final Rule Increases Automatic Extension Period for Certain EAD Renewal Applicants

On April 4, 2024, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a significant change impacting employment authorization for certain applicants. The new temporary final rule (TFR) increases the automatic extension period for employment authorization documents (EADs) for eligible renewal applicants from up to 180 days to up to 540 days. This change aims to provide more stability and assurance to applicants awaiting their EAD renewals.

Key Details of the Temporary Final Rule

Effective Date: The new rule comes into effect on April 8, 2024.

Eligibility Criteria:

  • Past Applications: The TFR applies to EAD renewal applicants who have timely and properly filed their Form I-765 applications on or after October 27, 2023, provided their applications are still pending on April 8, 2024.
  • Future Applications: It also applies to EAD renewal applicants who file their Form I-765 applications timely and properly on or after April 8, 2024, and on or before September 30, 2025 (540 days after the publication of this temporary final rule in the Federal Register).

What This Means for EAD Renewal Applicants

The extension from 180 days to 540 days provides a considerable buffer for applicants, reducing the stress and uncertainty associated with potential employment gaps while waiting for EAD renewals. This change is especially pertinent given the processing delays that have been experienced by many applicants.

Actions to Take

  1. Check Your Filing Dates: If you filed your Form I-765 on or after October 27, 2023, and your application is still pending, you are eligible for this automatic extension.
  2. Future Filings: Plan to file your Form I-765 timely and properly if your EAD will need renewal between April 8, 2024, and September 30, 2025.
  3. Stay Informed: Regularly check the USCIS website or subscribe to updates to ensure you are informed of any further changes or requirements.

Conclusion

This temporary final rule by USCIS provides significant relief to many EAD renewal applicants, offering a longer extension period to mitigate employment disruptions. Ensure you meet the eligibility criteria and file your applications timely to benefit from this new rule.

Stay tuned for more updates and ensure your paperwork is in order to take full advantage of this beneficial change!

The Effect of the Supreme Court Decision in Pereira v. Sessions on Non-Citizens

 

Non-permanent residents now have a new way to challenge their removal proceedings.  It has been made possible by a recent legal decision by which many are encouraged since it has the potential to assist many non-citizens in the United States.

In an eight to one (8-1) ruling, made on June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States held that “a putative notice sent to a nonpermanent resident to appear at a removal proceeding that fails to designate a specific time or place for that proceeding does not end the continuous residence period calculation necessary for possible cancellation of the individual’s removal.”

An applicant for cancellation of removal must accrue ten (10) years of continuous physical presence, accompanied with other variables, to qualify for relief from removal. The statute states that when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issues a notice to appear (NTA) for removal proceedings, the NTA stops the clock on the accrual of a non-citizen’s ten (10) years of continuous physical presence.

However, 8 U.S.C. 1229(a), defines the NTA as a notice that provides specific information, including “the time and place at which the proceedings will be held.”   In practice,
a huge majority of NTAs that are served on non-citizens to initiate removal proceedings never include the time and place of the removal proceedings.

In Pereira v. Sessions Petitioner Wesley Fonseca Pereira (Pereira), a native and citizen of Brazil, who arrived in the United States in 2000 and remained after his visa expired.  He was shy of the ten (10) year continuous residence requirement when he received a notice from the DHS placing him in removal proceedings. Given that Pereira’s NTA did not contain the time and place of the removal proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the issuance of an NTA to him did not prompt the stop-time rule, which rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Therefore, even after receipt of deficient notice, Pereira continued to accrue time towards his presence in the United States. On that basis, Pereira should be able to reopen his immigration court case and apply for cancellation of removal, which if granted, would give him lawful permanent residence status.

This ruling could have colossal ramifications on thousands of individuals, including persons who are currently in removal proceedings and persons who have been ordered deported.  If the Supreme Court defines an NTA as a document that must have the time and place of proceedings in all circumstances, most people currently in removal proceedings can challenge the NTA as deficient and move to terminate proceedings.

Currently, some Immigration Court Judges take a broader view and have extended its implication beyond the Stop Time Rule, effectively terminating proceedings based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction is holding that if the NTA is not valid, the court lacks jurisdiction, and therefore, the authority to render decisions regarding any issues that may be raised.

While the DHS can always file a new and corrected NTA, it does buy a person in removal proceedings time, and may help tremendously with case completion rates, a purported goal of the Department of Justice.

If you have any questions about the recent immigration changes or what to do if you, or someone you know, is apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), do not hesitate to contact our office at (973) 542 – 0200. We have trained staff that can speak in Spanish, Hindi and Gujarati.

For more information about best immigration lawyer in New Jersey, visit: www.immilawyernj.ca/

Asylum Seekers Lose Work Authorizations and Ability to Support Themselves

n

On August 25, 2020, a new rule concerning asylum seekers will be put into effect which would block work permits for almost all asylum applicants who arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border. No one who has crossed any other ports of entry into another country is ineligible to apply for a work permit essentially depriving them of livelihood. Congress has made clear that it is legal to seek asylum after crossing the border between ports of entry so this new rule is a direct contradiction. Please also note that this only applies to immigrants crossing in through the Mexican border.

There’s an exception to the rule that is barely of any help. The exception only applies to people who present themselves to a border official, request asylum within 48 hours, and can show “good cause” for not going to a port of entry. It is expected for an individual traveling across country borders on foot to reach a border official within 48 hours. The consideration of what a good cause is extremely narrow, unclear, and not completely defined in the proposed rule..

Another detrimental aspect to this rule is that, asylum seekers will now have to wait 365 days after filing an asylum application to seek a work permit instead of the current 180 days. If an asylum seeker already is in possession of a work permit they are still in danger of it being removed from them. Anyone who lost their case at the Board of Immigration Appeals and wanted to appeal to a federal court or asylum seekers convicted of a wide variety of minor crimes are all liable to have their permit revoked.

What does DHS have to say about these abusive new rules? DHS has stated that asylum seekers “should become familiar with the homelessness resources provided by the state where they intend to reside.” And they are “confident that those [individuals] legitimately fleeing persecution will be willing to adapt to the longer wait period for employment authorization”. In other words take your pick homelessness or working illegally and risk being denied asylum all while paying taxes.

Proposed Amendments to Asylum Law

The Immigration Law world has been shaken up as of late by a proposed memo released with plans to limit who can apply and be approved for asylum. These limitations are so drastic that this proposal is facing criticism from Amnesty International, American Immigration Council, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and many more. If the rule is actually enacted, asylum claims would become obsolete. Among the plethora of paralyzing changes that can potentially occur are some of the following…

No gender based claims including fleeing domestic violence or any gender based assault.Gives immigration judges the right away to pre-terminate applications before the applicant can even appear in court with no hearing.Allows non- legally trained asylum officers to deem applications frivolous conflicting with the non-adversarial asylum screening rules already in place.Applicants can be denied for failing to first seek asylum or pay taxes before arriving to the U.S. in another country. For example if the applicant took a connecting flight they can be denied.Applicants will face a significantly more challenging screening and instead of being sent to full immigration court they will face another form of asylum and withholding hearing where other forms of relief will not be considered. Applicants being persecuted by foreign government officials will not qualify for asylum if that government official is proven to be acting on their merit Applicants that have refused to join a criminal or terrorist group that cant be traced legally back to the government.

This is just a short list of the changes in the extensive 161 page proposed rule that you can read in its entirety here . These proposals are facing constitutional challenges. Most importantly, it is essential to note this rule is directly going against our right to due process here in The United States. These are uneasy times for immigrants but if this rule is approved it will be detrimental to asylum seekers and attorneys. For more help and information do not hesitate to contact us a (973)542-0200.

DACA Victory

Hope for Dreamers

Today we celebrate a BIG WIN on the immigration front! Since 2017 Trump’s administration has been attempting to terminate the DACA program. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of DACA and this completely restores the program in its full capacity taking new and renewed applications.

What does this mean?

DACA recipients will be protected from deportation and eligible for the same previous benefits like work authorization cards.DACA recipients can continue to renew their DACA for two more years.New DACA applications can be submitted.Advance Parole allows DACA recipients to travel outside the United States and return however; due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic travel options are slim to none.

Although this good news is of relief to anyone going through or who wishes to go through the DACA program, it is essential to still consult with an immigration law professional to insure that everything is in good standing and discuss what further options are possible. For further information on the details of this victory visit the DACA website at https://www.ilrc.org/daca.For legal advice or more information please do not hesitate to contact us at (973)542-0200.

Waiving Misrepresentation and Fraud

The § 237(a)(1)(H) waiver is a humanitarian waiver for certain individuals who have been placed in deportation proceedings and charged with fraud or misrepresentation. Its function is essentially a form of relief from removal and or deportation. It considers and allows you to defend yourself against alleged fraud or misrepresentation when admitted into The United States. In order to apply for a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver the respondent must come before an immigration court and request this relief. If the waiver is granted, the applicant is safe from removal which results in termination of proceedings. So who is eligible?

the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; and

was in possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible to the United States at the time of admission except for those grounds of inadmissibility specified under paragraphs (5)(A) and (7)(A) of section 1182(a) of this title which were a direct result of that fraud or misrepresentation. a lawful permanent resident through adjustment of statusa VAWA self-petitioner.

Who is not a Qualifying Relative?

Children The spouse of fraud marriage

Also consider, a deceased parent or child is not usually able to be a qualifying relative. There are very specific instances in certain states that consider deceased relatives in specific cases.

What kind of Fraud or Misinterpretation?

There are a few instances where the fraud or misinterpretation can be applied under this waiver.

An individual who claimed to be an unmarried child of a legal permanent resident even though they were actually married at the time An individual who immigrated based on a marriage that had been already legally terminatedAn individual who conditional legal permanent resident who immigrated through a petition from a spouse or step parent and the petitioner and spouse were not married for two years at the time of admission or adjustment of status.

This waiver, on the other hand, does not apply to people who were already otherwise inadmissible into the country due to other crimes, deportations, or unlawful restrictions.

This waiver once submitted is up to the discretion of the judge to weight the respondent’s actions in the court of law. Hardship does not have to be considered when the judge is deciding to grant this waiver. We at the Law Offices of Cindy Ramjattan Paul can advise you on whether you qualify for this waiver. For more information please do not hesitate to contact us at (973)542-0200.

Effective Overstaying On Legal Permanent Residents

Covid-19 has affected all of us in ways that we never saw coming. Many immigrants who have abided by the laws of the country, and kept up with all processes the government has required of them, are stuck in foreign countries due to travel bans. Many of them will overstay their visa in that foreign country. So now what, what can be done?

If you are outside of the United States for less than one year

If you are a legal permanent resident and you have been out of the United States for over six months but less than one year, you will still be permitted to travel to the United States if your travel documentation is valid, such as your passport or a U.S. driver’s license. You can re-enter the United States if your green card is expired as long as you have a current passport or other current identification.

If you are outside of the United States for over one year

Under current regulations, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United with a green card must return to the United States within 364 days of the last departure in order to retain status as a permanent resident. If the person has obtained a re-entry permit (Form I-131), the person must return to the United States within the validity of the re-entry permit in order to retain status as a permanent resident. Re-entry permits cannot be extended, and applications are only accepted in the United States by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. See www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/B5en.pdf for more information.

If you are an LPR who remains outside the United States for over one year without a valid re-entry permit and has jeopardized his/her legal resident status

If such an individual wishes to return to the United States as an LPR, two options exist:

Either a relative in the United States files a new immigrant visa petition ORThe LPR applies for a Returning Resident (SB-1) visa.

In order to apply for an SB-1 visa, the applicant should schedule an online appointment with the U.S. Consulate, once re-opened for routine visa services. If the travel is urgent, or the applicant is unable to schedule an appointment online, he or she may visit U.S. Consulate General. The applicant must consult with their designated consulate for more information on the necessary documents.

We hope that this information is of use and helps someone as knowledge is power and we must exercise our rights. For any further information or to schedule a consultation please do not hesitate to call us at (973)542-0200.

Foreign Fiance and Visa Requirements

So you’re in love and distance is the only obstacle to fulfil your goals of marriage, now what? The United States government has a visa for that! In the case that you are a United States Citizen and you are engaged to be married with an individual who is a foreign citizen, you can facilitate that process through filing for a K-1 Visa. This Visa allows foreign citizen fiancés to travel to the United States to marry their beloved within 90 days of arrival. Filing the Petition Form I-129F is the proper first step to attain K-1 visa. But, what does it take to be approved for form I-129F?

First and foremost, this should go without saying but you MUST be a United States Citizen to sponsor a fiancé. Secondly, the sole intention of the trip to the United States is to strictly marry the petitioner. That must be backed up with proof of such, for example, wedding invitations, booking conformations, invoices of spending, etc. There must also be evidence that the parties have met in persona at least once within two years of filing the application. You must bonify your relationship and have proof of love and communication through text messages, phone records, money transfer receipts, pictures, gifts, letters, etc. Once those things are proven and the Petition Form I-129F is filed and approved by USCIS the National Visa Center will give you a case number and a date of interview at the designated U.S Embassy. In the case that the beneficiary has children they are eligible to apply for a K-2 visa based off of the approval of the parent’s petition when they are listed on the petition.

The interview requires both parties to be prepared to answer questions as well as provide additional proof to confirm the union. There can be no legal impediments to the marriage, for example, underage marriage is not permitted as well as legal existent previous marriage. The official Online Non-immigrant Application (DS-160) must be completed for the interview as well. Any prior criminal history must be disclosed by both parties. The National Visa Center also requires proper medical examination results the day of the interview as well as evidence that the petitioner can fully support the beneficiary. The additional items that are required at the interview are…

PassportBirth certificateDivorce and/ or death certificatesPolice certificatesPayment of feesTwo 2×2 photographs

In the case that the interview goes well the parties must be married within 90 days after entry into the United States. All that is left to do is file for resident status as well as both employment and travel authorizations if desired. At The Offices Of Cindy Ramjattan Paul we work tirelessly to ensure that your petition is likely to be approved.

Contact our firm today to learn more and schedule a consultation at 973-542-0200!