An Expert Discussion on Immigration in the United States

The U.S. immigration landscape in 2025 continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace, presenting both challenges and opportunities for businesses, families, and individuals. Recent policy shifts, regulatory reinterpretations, and growing application backlogs have created a complex environment defined by heightened scrutiny, slowed processing, and historic delays. From mandatory in-person non-immigrant visa interviews and updated reciprocity schedules to new USCIS fees and postponed Temporary Protected Status (TPS) terminations for several countries, these developments have intensified pressure on employers, entrepreneurs, and investors – where even well-prepared cases can encounter unexpected denials or compliance hurdles. Understanding the nuances, risks, and potential remedies is critical for anyone navigating this system.
 
To shed light on these issues, we spoke with two leading immigration law experts: Jeffrey Feinbloom, a seasoned Manhattan-based attorney and partner at Feinbloom Bertisch LLP, and Charles Kuck, managing partner of Atlanta-based law firm Kuck Immigration Partners LLC. With decades of combined experience spanning business visas, compliance programmes, asylum trials, and representation of individuals, families, and corporations, they offer a front-row view into the legal, operational, and human impacts of today’s policies.
 
Have there been any recent regulatory changes or interesting developments?
 
Kuck:The Trump Administration is essentially reinterpreting U.S. immigration laws in the most unfavourable way to immigrants. Congress has implemented funding cuts to the tune of $170 billion. And, USCIS has slowed down processing of almost every case type in an attempt to slow down legal immigration. Not since 1924 have we seen an attack on immigrants at this speed and scale. 
 
Feinbloom:I largely agree with this assessment, particularly when it comes to enforcement and removal operations. The regulatory and policy changes in this area are dizzying, cruel, and unprecedented. The changes are so numerous and arbitrary that it is difficult and almost impossible to keep up with and track unless you have an associate or department devoted to this task. And it’s going to get much, much worse over the next 3.5 years in light of the Trump administration’s virulent anti-immigrant, anti-justice agenda and the recent funding bill passed by congress, coupled with a feckless and compliant Congress and a largely compliant (and unusually interventionist) Supreme Court. Several of the most shocking regulatory and policy changes have been struck down by the federal courts only to have the Supreme Court assert itself on the side of the administration, often in unprecedented fashion and without explanation using the so-called “shadow docket.”
 
What do these changes mean for sponsors?
 
Kuck:U.S. employers sponsoring foreign nationals face the worst interpretations of immigration laws in more than 40 years. This means a much higher rate of additional unnecessary evidence requests and denials of applications.
 
Feinbloom:I do not necessarily agree with this assessment. This is certainly true in the context of family-based immigration and humanitarian programmes, such as asylum and parole, but in the business-immigration context I would submit the jury is still out. To date, my office is not seeing much change from the prior administration in terms of adjudication of employment-based visa petitions. The one exception may be consular processing. Bona fide visa applicants face far greater risk in travelling overseas to apply for or renew their visas, and we are advising clients accordingly.
 
Both the UK and U.S. have shifted towards stricter immigration policies under their current leadership. Is this indicative of a wider, global trend?
 
Kuck:It is clear that “nationalism” and “retrenchment” are the words of the day. Not quite what Thatcher and Reagan pressed for in the 1980s. They could not have envisioned a day when we kowtowed to demagogues and dictators. 
 
How is the role of technology impacting the immigration law landscape?
 
Kuck:Immigration lawyers have long used technology to enhance our productivity, tracking of cases, and ensuring timely and accurate communication with clients. The introduction of AI has made our jobs both easier (for case preparation) and harder (people think they know immigration law because they asked a question to ChatGPT). Technology will play out, as it always does, in an upward trajectory, impelling and sometimes driving needed change to productivity and accuracy. 
 
In light of the U.S. immigration backlog reaching a record 11.3 million pending applications, how are immigration authorities tackling this growing concern?
 
Kuck:They are not. The growing backlog is a feature, not a bug of the Trump Administration’s immigration policies. Expect to see at least a 50% increase in this backlog over the course of the administration. 
 
Feinbloom:They do not appear to be doing anything about it. I do not believe they care, at all. My understanding is that USCIS is reallocating resources that could be used to tackle the backlog of pending cases towards other priorities, such as fraud investigations, deportability reviews, denaturalisation, and other law enforcement initiatives.
 
What are the main challenges caused by prolonged delays to the immigration process and are there any measures applicants can take to expedite their application?
 
Kuck:The biggest challenge is maintaining one’s lawful non-immigrant status in the U.S., while waiting on permanent immigration paperwork and availability of visa slots. The delay also causes increased frustration for clients and attorneys and affect individuals in negative ways, which, again, is one of the reasons USCIS does it. 
 
Feinbloom:From my perspective, the biggest challenge posed by prolonged delays is that of access and the inability to redress delays that are, or should easily be, redressable. For example, we have a case involving a family of five from Haiti that took years to complete because of the lack of an available visa number. I can accept this because visa availability in a particular category is mandated by statute. There is no discretion, and attorneys understand this. After waiting many years, we succeeded in getting both parents a green card.
 
However, two years later, the three young children still do not have green cards. By law, their applications should have been approved with, or shortly after, the parents. But there was a glitch over the medical exams, and USCIS arbitrarily denied their applications, then arbitrarily denied our motion to reopen. We submitted a second motion, which remains pending. Any reasonable person would conclude that this is an unacceptable situation, but there is no way to effectively redress it. Because the children did not maintain their “parole” status during the pendency of their green card applications, which the law does not require, and because the family does not qualify for the “immediate relative” exception, the children cannot re-file their applications because they presently lack status.
 
The family could file a lawsuit against the government, but that is a very expensive proposition, which the family cannot afford. Moreover, because of the way the law has developed in the context of adjustment of status applications, a court may conclude that it lacks jurisdiction to grant the children the relief they so obviously deserve.
 
What are the most common reasons visas tend to get held up or rejected and how can you remediate these risks?
 
Kuck:The biggest reason is improperly prepared cases. Immigration law is more than filling out forms. There are decades of policies, case law, memos, meeting minutes, and even public declarations that need to be taken into account when preparing cases. Given the speed with which the Trump Administration is changing longstanding polices, we will see increasing rejections because lawyers and the public simply are not keeping up. 
 
Feinbloom:I agree. The risk of delay or rejection is best remediated by ensuring your case is properly prepared. But, in reality, even the best prepared and highly meritorious cases can be delayed or rejected, particularly in the Trump era. We have one case involving a highly specialised employee of a multinational biotechnology company whose petition was approved by USCIS. The beneficiary is a flawless visa applicant. A young, highly educated woman without any adverse immigration or criminal history. Yet her case is being held up indefinitely, by consular officials in Greece (her native country), who without explanation have refused to issue her a visa. It has now been six months since her visa interview. 
 
What measures can employers and foreign citizens take to reduce risks and manage data security concerns at the border?
 
Kuck:Understand that the U.S. Constitution does not apply at the borders (or airport ports of entry). No one has a right to a lawyer there, nor a right to avoid what is essentially interrogation or searches. Do not carry electronics with sensitive data, including computers and phone, as well as memory sticks. If you must have something more than a flip phone, make sure the facial recognition is turned off. You can refuse to give passwords, but CBP will take your device, crack it, and then return it to you in 60 days. You can refuse to provide online passwords, so do use the cloud to store data, if you must have when travelling to the U.S. 
 
What immigration routes exist for entrepreneurs and investors?
 
Kuck:The routes, the E-2 for non-immigrants from treaty countries, and the EB-5 for immigration investors remain unchanged, although we are seeing increasing denials for E-2 applicants who cannot show the necessary intent to return to their home country when their investment ends. No one should process these visas alone. Experienced counsel is an absolute must to avoid delays and denials. 
 
Feinbloom:For short-term/non-permanent work, the E-2 visa is likely the best option for those from countries whose nationals are eligible. Entrepreneurs may also qualify under the H-1B or O-1 visa programmes. Another option is a relatively new program called Entrepreneurial Parole: https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/international-entrepreneur-rule. However, even under the prior administration, processing times were egregiously long and the fate of this programme under the current administration is dubious. For permanent residency (green card), EB-5 is out of reach for many entrepreneurs, and it takes forever to obtain a visa and green card under this programme. A more viable path might be EB-1 for truly “extraordinary” individuals, EB-2/NIW (National Interest Waiver), but these programmes are also highly restrictive. It is bizarre how difficult the U.S. makes it for foreign entrepreneurs and investors. 
 
What are the current requirements for long-term residents who wish to gain citizenship?
 
Kuck:These, likewise, have not changed. Residence for five years in the U.S., (three years if you are married for three years to a USC after obtaining residence). Passing a civics and English test and being a person of good moral character for five years are also requisites.
 
Feinbloom:Yes, the requirements have not changed. But the Trump administration has weaponised USCIS, which is the agency that adjudicates naturalisation and other benefit applications. It has begun to transform USCIS from an agency whose mission is to adjudicate benefit requests into one whose mission is increasingly focused on law enforcement and serving the deportation machine. The naturalisation process has long been a pipeline for removal (deportation) proceedings and a tool to root out prior fraudulent conduct. In the current era, the risk of an adverse decision or enforcement action has increased exponentially, including for longtime lawful permanent residents with relatively minor violations. 
 
What is the U.S. stance on digital nomads and remote international workers?
 
Kuck:The U.S. has no visa for digital nomads and does not allow any individual to come to the U.S. as a visitor if they are going to work here, even if that work is for an overseas company. Find a different country!
 
Feinbloom:I do not believe digital nomads face any more obstacles than other international workers. In general, the remote status of a worker is not relevant. With few exceptions, they should be able to qualify in the same manner as any other international worker.
 
Do you anticipate any further changes in the near future?
 
Kuck:We will see massive changes the H-1B visa programme in the next 12 months, as well as changes in the EB-2 and EB-3 programmes as it pertains to interpretations of “national interest” and the labour certification programme. Although it feels like four years have passed, Trump has only been president for six months. We have 3.5 years to go, and it is going to be wild and terrifying ride. 
 
Feinbloom:Changes are surely coming, but they are difficult to predict with any degree of specificity. Despite rhetoric to the contrary from the Administration, they are not likely to promote business immigration. I could be mistaken, but it’s likely to get worse before it gets better. With that said, the actual laws remain largely unchanged in the business immigration context. Meritorious cases should, by and large, continue to be approved. Premium (expedited) processing has actually been expanded and serves as an income-generator for USCIS, so that programme should continue to expand. E-filing and online processing should also continue to expand, although the technology is poor and not user-friendly. 

About Charles Kuck
Mr. Charles Kuck received his B.A. Degree from Brigham Young University in 1986. He earned his J.D. degree, cum laude, from Arizona State University Law School in 1989. He is admitted to practice law in Georgia, Washington, D.C., and Arizona. He has been admitted to the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, nine Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and numerous Federal District Courts.

About Jeffrey Feinbloom
Since 1996, Mr. Feinbloom has maintained his own legal practice in Manhattan focused exclusively on immigration and nationality law.  Over the course of his career, he has successfully represented countless businesses, individuals and families before the United States Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies on a broad range of legal issues.  Mr. Feinbloom is an adjunct professor at the School of Professional Studies at the City University of New York (CUNY), where he teaches immigration law and naturalization, and is a longtime member of the New York and National chapters of the American Immigration Lawyers' Association (AILA).  He is admitted to practice law in the State of New York as well as numerous federal district and appellate courts. 

For more insights, resources, and guidance on navigating the U.S. immigration system, get in touch with Charles Kuck and the team at Kuck Baxter at www.immigration.net or reach out to Jeffrey Feinbloom and the team at Feinbloom Bertisch LLP at www.fbllp.com.