u/victoriaslatton

A lot of folks across different case types are stuck in a serious backlog right now, driven largely by recent policy changes at USCIS. We've started filing mandamus suits to deal with it, and these are the most common questions and concerns I get about it.

First off, a mandamus is a lawsuit that asks the court to compel USCIS to give you an answer. It is not a lawsuit asking a judge to approve your case. The two get confused constantly, so let's start there.

"Wait, I'm suing the government?"
Yes, but not the kind of lawsuit people picture. I have not personally seen retaliation happen because of a mandamus or an expedite. I am not saying it has never happened anywhere, only that I have not seen it. When I was an officer, my caseload was my caseload. I did not care how a file landed on my desk. A mandamus has nothing to do with the merits of your underlying claim. I once fully adjudicated a mandamus win and had genuinely forgotten it was one until the applicant mentioned it at the end. Same thing happened with an expedite. It did not register with me one way or another. It was honestly just one more piece of paper in a lengthy file I was reviewing. I was looking for consistency and legal merit.

"What's the actual risk?"
Mostly money. My partner Jack Goodman screens every case hard before we file, and he will tell a client flat out if it is too early. Because of that, we win almost all of our mandamus cases. But there are no guarantees in immigration. Ever. We can still lose. That is the reality, and if anyone claims otherwise, they're not being genuine.

"Could it hurt my underlying application?"
There is one real caveat: consistency. Nothing in your mandamus filing can contradict anything in the rest of your application. That is the one thing I ask every client to be careful about. Assume everything you say to the government is always in your file somewhere.

"How fast does this actually move?"
Slower than people hope. A mandamus is closer to a guaranteed answer than a fast one. I usually get my expedites through quicker, since an officer can review and respond the same day. That doesn't happen with a mandamus. The government gets time to respond, and the judge needs time to review it after that. We are talking months, not days. Most people come to us needing an answer right now, and it is genuinely hard to tell them that a mandamus is not going to move that quickly.

"Why not just send a notice that you're going to sue?"
We can, if the client wants that route. It is their case, and we're not going to charge more for it. But almost everyone who reaches the mandamus stage wants an answer quickly, and in our experience those notices get ignored almost every time. So we usually go straight to filing. Other attorneys do this differently, and they are not wrong to. It depends on the specific facts.

"What actually makes a mandamus strong?"
Time outside normal processing is the biggest factor, or if those processing times have become unreasonable. It also helps to show you exhausted your other options first, meaning you submitted inquiries, tried an expedite, that kind of thing. Personal hardship and government error can also play a role. There is no perfect formula. I wish I could hand you one, and I realize it's frustrating that I don't. It is case by case, every time.

"Is it even worth it?"
They work. Really well, actually. For a stretch, our mandamus and expedite cases were the only ones seeing any movement at all. More cases are moving on their own now, but this is still one of the strongest tools available. It is also one of the few places in immigration where you are not just waiting on a system that owes you nothing. The court has to respond, and USCIS has to answer.

I truly am so sorry a lot of you are dealing with this delay.

You're welcome to ask questions here, but keep my caveat above in mind. All of these cases require pretty fact specific analysis, and I cannot give legal advice in this format.

Also, I am indeed a real person. I get accused of this every time. My info is pinned to my profiles

I don’t just mean habeas or mandamus.

For obvious reasons I can’t give specifics about the case but I’m happy to talk about the process. Mostly I’ve just been really bummed it’s gotten to this level. I always assumed I’d end up on the other side of the government, but I didn’t think things would get this bad. So here we are.

I keep getting this question from clients, so figured I'd share what I actually know, both from practicing now and from my time on the inside.

The short answer: probably not as much as you think, unless something flags you.

USCIS does not have ICE's budget or ICE's staffing. Manually combing through every applicant's full social media history is not realistic at current resource levels. My educated guess (and it is a guess, not confirmed policy) is that even where initial sweeps or automated screening happen, a deep manual dive is reserved for cases where something already raised a flag. For what it's worth, none of my current clients have been asked about their social media yet.

That said, disclosure requirements have expanded a lot over the past year. If you're in a category required to list your accounts, that information is on the record and can be checked. "They're not reading everything" isn't the same as "it doesn't matter what's on there."

Advice I give clients:
-If your account is private, keep it private. If it's public, keep it public. Don't change your settings right now. A sudden shift can itself read as an attempt to manage what an officer sees.
-Don't delete old posts. Same logic: it can look like you're covering something up, which is often worse than the post itself.
-If an officer asks you about something on your social media, answer honestly. In my experience, officers respond far better to someone who owns something than someone who's clearly trying to spin it.

Officers are human. When I was adjudicating, I saw plenty of things in background checks that raised an eyebrow. Unless it pointed to an actual security concern or undermined the merits of the case, I usually didn't even bring it up. Most officers aren't looking to nitpick your Twitter history. They're trying to determine whether you're eligible and whether you're a security risk.

Bottom line: don't give them a reason to flag you. Don't hide, don't scrub, don't panic-change your privacy settings. If asked, be honest and move on.

Happy to answer questions. I have a few windows today it hop on.

I’m an attorney but this is not legal advice.

I keep getting this question from clients, so figured I'd share what I actually know, both from practicing now and from my time on the inside.

The short answer: probably not as much as you think, unless something flags you.

USCIS does not have ICE's budget or ICE's staffing. Manually combing through every applicant's full social media history is not realistic at current resource levels. My educated guess (and it is a guess, not confirmed policy) is that even where initial sweeps or automated screening happen, a deep manual dive is reserved for cases where something already raised a flag. For what it's worth, none of my current clients have been asked about their social media yet.

That said, disclosure requirements have expanded a lot over the past year. If you're in a category required to list your accounts, that information is on the record and can be checked. "They're not reading everything" isn't the same as "it doesn't matter what's on there."

Advice I give clients:
-If your account is private, keep it private. If it's public, keep it public. Don't change your settings right now. A sudden shift can itself read as an attempt to manage what an officer sees.
-Don't delete old posts. Same logic: it can look like you're covering something up, which is often worse than the post itself.
-If an officer asks you about something on your social media, answer honestly. In my experience, officers respond far better to someone who owns something than someone who's clearly trying to spin it.

Officers are human. When I was adjudicating, I saw plenty of things in background checks that raised an eyebrow. Unless it pointed to an actual security concern or undermined the merits of the case, I usually didn't even bring it up. Most officers aren't looking to nitpick your Twitter history. They're trying to determine whether you're eligible and whether you're a security risk.

Bottom line: don't give them a reason to flag you. Don't hide, don't scrub, don't panic-change your privacy settings. If asked, be honest and move on.

Happy to answer questions. I have a few windows today it hop on.

I’m an attorney but this is not legal advice.

Forgive me if this tone feels off. I’m a human and it’s been a pretty brutal few days with the fallout of TPS and arriving aliens.

We technically won today. The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship. But zoom out and this was a brutal term. Two other rulings this month gutted asylum access and stripped court oversight of TPS terminations. A lot of people are back to square one, and it's hard to celebrate one good ruling when it came packaged with two bad ones. That doesn't mean it's hopeless, but I guess I can give a practical breakdown.

1. Birthright citizenship: upheld
   Trump's executive order tried to deny citizenship to U.S.-born babies of undocumented or temporary-status parents. SCOTUS struck it down 6-3, citing the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark.

Pro tip: don’t read the dissents because they are so depressing.

What it means: No change. Babies born here are still citizens, full stop. Trump says he'll push Congress for legislation instead, but that's a much higher bar and isn't law yet.

So… I guess thank the Supreme Court for the bare minimum today. Sorry to be a downer.

2. Asylum seekers can be turned back before reaching U.S. soil

SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that someone physically blocked from crossing hasn't "arrived" in the U.S., so the right to apply for asylum never kicks in. This revives "metering" at ports of entry.

What it means/options: CBP can now legally station officers to stop people before they cross. If you're planning to present at a port of entry, talk to an attorney first about current conditions and alternate paths (parole programs, processing apps, etc. if available).

This one worries me a little. The definition of an arriving alien is actually really important in immigration law. As of right now nothing has changed for folks in the country and I don’t want to speculate and cause fear. It’s just something to watch.

3. TPS terminations are mostly unreviewable in court

SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that courts generally can't review DHS's decision to end a country's TPS designation. This clears the way for ending TPS for Haiti and Syria.

What it means/options: This ruling alone doesn't end your TPS today, it just removes a legal tool to fight a termination once DHS issues one. Watch the Federal Register for an actual notice. If you hold TPS from Haiti or Syria, talk to an attorney now about backup status options (asylum, family petitions, other relief) before a termination notice starts a clock. If you can, start this now and not after falling out of status. Believe me things are easier before an NTA.

Folks have asked me if I’m worried about TPS as a whole. The answer is yes. Again that’s all speculation through.

This is not legal advice, just trying to lay out where things stand. This is also not me throwing in the towel. Don’t take my pessimism today as defeatism. I’m not giving up.

I’m not sure how else I can help, but I’ll answer what I can.

ETA: I have to go be a real lawyer now. I’m so sorry for what a lot of folks are going through. My contact is pinned to my profile. I’ll also try to get back on this weekend and answer more.

Hey everyone. A lot of folks have been asking for another AMA, especially with the pause lifted. I am going to try to do one this afternoon if I finish a couple of urgent cases (it’s been a crazy week), but first I wanted to write this post.

T visas are some of the most misunderstood visas in immigration, largely because of how the media portrays trafficking. This confusion extends to other attorneys too. When I was an officer at DHS I had specific training on this, but honestly, if I hadn't, I'm not sure I would have recognized what it looked like in practice.

The reality of labor trafficking
Most trafficking victims fall under labor trafficking, which happens in broad daylight. Victims often have some degree of freedom of movement. They might even make money. Labor trafficking is so common that you've probably seen it without realizing it.

A few things to clear up right away:
-You do NOT have to be trafficked into the country. This can happen entirely within U.S. borders.
-Kidnapping is NOT an element of trafficking.
-Most victims actually know their traffickers… I’ve seen it happen within families. Those are really hard cases.

How I screen
I usually start by asking two questions: (1) Have you been a victim of a crime inside the United States? and (2) Have you ever been forced to work for little or no money?

The first one covers a lot (U visas, VAWA, sex trafficking, etc). That second question is the key one though. If someone answers yes, I know the consultation is about to be twice as long, especially if there's a safety concern involved.

From there, here's what I look at:
-How did they meet their trafficker, and are they in a position to report them? This gets complicated fast when the trafficker is a friend or family member.
-How much were they paid, and how often?
-What were the working conditions like?
-Who kept their passport?
-Were they ever physically harmed on the job by someone in charge?
-Were they ever emotionally harmed or degraded on the job?
-Did their boss or anyone in management ever mention their immigration status, threaten to call ICE, or hold their status over their head in any way? I call this the golden ticket when I train other attorneys. It is one of the surest signs of trafficking. [Also there’s a special circle of hell for people who manipulate immigrants for free labor by threatening to calling ICE]
-What would have happened if they tried to quit?

Most of the time, after going through all of this, I kindly refer the person to a personal injury or employment attorney because what they experienced was an unsafe workplace. An unsafe workplace alone is not enough. However, if someone was forced to stay due to coercion, that unsafe workplace becomes a very important piece of the puzzle.

I also want to be clear: one affirmative answer does not make a trafficking case. These elements have to be taken together to meet the legal threshold.

Building the case
When I present these cases to the government, the goal is to make them understand this was not a workplace dispute. My client could not have left if they wanted to.

Along with the required forms and proof that the client reported their trafficker to police or a hotline (I encourage both), I try to gather witness statements, hospital records, psych reports, proof of little or no pay, and anything else that tells their full story.

The hardest part of this work is convincing people that they have, in fact, been trafficked. I get a lot of skeptical looks. I have literally read the legal elements of trafficking out loud to potential clients who agreed every element applied to them, but still couldn't see themselves as a victim personally.

Anyway, I'm here for questions this afternoon. And if you think you might fall under this visa, please book a consultation with a trusted attorney who has real experience with these cases. It matters who you work with.

I am an attorney but this is not legal advice. Every case is unique and needs a personal evaluation.

I want to lead with something important: if you are on DACA, submit an expedite request. The backlog has put nearly everyone in a dangerous position of possibly losing their jobs and their ability to work. That is a real harm and it deserves a real response.

That said, I am not an attorney who will file an expedite for just anyone. I tell my clients they need a reason beyond wanting an answer faster. I also know from the inside how heavily these rely on officer discretion, because I used to be one of those officers. I did a detail at USCIS where I was the person deciding expedite requests. I do not like taking money from clients if I do not feel there is something real to build on.

Every case is different and needs individual evaluation. But here are the tips I give my clients. The core idea: try to think like the officer reading your request.

Make the case for the United States, not just for yourself
Officers are trained to evaluate what is in the best interest of the United States. Lead with that. If you manage a team, explain what happens to that team if you cannot work. If you are in an essential worker role, use it. Your personal hardship matters, but it lands harder when it is connected to a broader impact.

If U.S. citizens depend on you financially, say so
This is one of the strongest arguments you can make. Minor children are especially compelling. Make the case that your family, specifically people who are U.S. citizens, would suffer real harm if you lose the ability to work. Be specific about who depends on you and how.

Find what makes your case stand out
USCIS is receiving hundreds of these requests. If there is something unique about your situation or circumstances, use it. A generic letter gets a generic result. Think about what an officer would remember about your case after reading fifty others in a row.

Keep it short, organized, and direct
Do not bury the lead. Bigger is not better. A well-organized one-page letter will outperform a disorganized three-page letter every time. Get to the point quickly and support it with documentation, not length.

Get something in writing from your employer
A letter on company letterhead stating that your employment is at risk carries real weight. Officers are more persuaded by corroboration than by the applicant's word alone. Even a short letter helps.

End on a human note
I almost always close with a reminder that this is a person who is trying to follow the rules. Not emotional, not pleading. Just honest. Officers are people too, and a professional letter that ends with some humanity tends to land better than one that does not.

Common mistake to avoid: do not submit a wall of text with irrelevant attachments. It signals disorganization and makes the officer's job harder. Every document you include should earn its place.

I am an immigration attorney and former USCIS officer. This reflects how our firm is currently approaching DACA expedite requests. This is not legal advice and every case is different. If you can, consult with a qualified immigration attorney or accredited representative before submitting.

I want to lead with something important: if you are on DACA, submit an expedite request. The backlog has put nearly everyone in a dangerous position of possibly losing their jobs and their ability to work. That is a real harm and it deserves a real response.

That said, I am not an attorney who will file an expedite for just anyone. I tell my clients they need a reason beyond wanting an answer faster. I also know from the inside how heavily these rely on officer discretion, because I used to be one of those officers. I did a detail at USCIS where I was the person deciding expedite requests. I do not like taking money from clients if I do not feel there is something real to build on.

Every case is different and needs individual evaluation. But here are the tips I give my clients. The core idea: try to think like the officer reading your request.

Make the case for the United States, not just for yourself

Officers are trained to evaluate what is in the best interest of the United States. Lead with that. If you manage a team, explain what happens to that team if you cannot work. If you are in an essential worker role, use it. Your personal hardship matters, but it lands harder when it is connected to a broader impact.

If U.S. citizens depend on you financially, say so
This is one of the strongest arguments you can make. Minor children are especially compelling. Make the case that your family, specifically people who are U.S. citizens, would suffer real harm if you lose the ability to work. Be specific about who depends on you and how.

Find what makes your case stand out
USCIS is receiving hundreds of these requests. If there is something unique about your situation or circumstances, use it. A generic letter gets a generic result. Think about what an officer would remember about your case after reading fifty others in a row.

Keep it short, organized, and direct
Do not bury the lead. Bigger is not better. A well-organized one-page letter will outperform a disorganized three-page letter every time. Get to the point quickly and support it with documentation, not length.

Get something in writing from your employer
A letter on company letterhead stating that your employment is at risk carries real weight. Officers are more persuaded by corroboration than by the applicant's word alone. Even a short letter helps.

End on a human note
I almost always close with a reminder that this is a person who is trying to follow the rules. Not emotional, not pleading. Just honest. Officers are people too, and a professional letter that ends with some humanity tends to land better than one that does not.

Common mistake to avoid: do not submit a wall of text with irrelevant attachments. It signals disorganization and makes the officer's job harder. Every document you include should earn its place.

I am an immigration attorney and former USCIS officer. This reflects how our firm is currently approaching DACA expedite requests. This is not legal advice and every case is different. If you can, consult with a qualified immigration attorney or accredited representative before submitting.

1. We're assuming it applies to everyone until we get clarification otherwise.
The memo has contractors language with dual intent, so we're erring on the side of caution. That was a hard pill for a lot of people to swallow after my post last week. However, just because it could apply to you doesn't mean it has to. This is why discretion is so powerful when you use it to your advantage.

2. We are still filing.
Seriously. It doesn't make sense to change legal strategy over a memo -- one that's likely illegal and will probably be subject to litigation soon -- that doesn't even properly state who will and will not be subjected to the changes.

3. We are throwing everything into the legal argument.
This week alone I've argued: unsafe conditions back home, countries on the paused or banned list, countries without consulates, childcare disruption, professional disruption, educational disruption, and healthcare concerns. Until I am given explicit understanding of what "extraordinary" means, I'm going all in for my clients.

I was quoted in the New York Times earlier this week basically saying that if this memo was meant to discourage people from applying by causing chaos and fear, it's working. I can only educate my clients -- they ultimately decide what happens with their case -- but I'm strongly encouraging everyone to move forward.
And yes, I am expecting pauses and RFEs. I'm warning clients about this upfront. RFEs don't scare me and might actually provide some much-needed clarity.

I am an immigration attorney but this is not legal advice.

Quick note: I usually try to answer questions on these posts. I’ll do my best but it’s my birthday so I might not be able to answer much until tomorrow.

This is not legal advice. I also have no more information than yall do.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-602-0199-AdjustmentOfStatusAndDiscretion-20260521.pdf

Right now, it looks like almost everyone could be subject to consular processing. There could be a hold on all green card for immigrants inside the United States.

A few caveats:
-We don't know what extraordinary circumstances mean. The memo did not being to adequately define who falls under this exception. I imagine those who cannot CP due to pending asylum applications or civil unrest back home could be immune to this memo. I also imagine health and inability to travel will be taken into account. I do not know though.
-I expect litigation on this and I expect it soon. This is a sweeping memo that is begging for a lawsuit. I'm seeing some forums lighting up in the immigration attorney chats, but I don't have any more information at this time.
-Call your members of Congress. Tell your friends to do it too. This memo will impact a lot of families and Congress needs to hear you're unhappy with the outcome.

I have about a two hour window to answer questions. I know everyone is very scared right now and I'm sure I cannot remove those anxieties, but I will do my best to help and answer questions directly.

ETA: I have to hop off and talk to some anxious clients. Before I do, I want to remind everyone that we do not know the scope of this memo or who will actually be impacted. It sounds like A LOT is left up to officer discretion which can actually work in your favor. There is a very good chance we'll get clarifying language and litigation against this soon.

I used to be an asylum officer at DHS-USCIS. I really loved that job. I was a fully trained an adjudicator who did the background checks, interview, and decision issuances.

Obviously I cannot give out any classified information about the agency. Also I am an immigration/federal lit attorney but this is NOT legal advice. I can give general information but case specific issues should be addressed by a trusted and verified attorney.

I used to be an asylum officer at DHS-USCIS. I really loved that job. I was a fully trained an adjudicator who did the background checks, interview, and decision issuances.

Obviously I cannot give out any classified information about the agency. Also I am an immigration/federal lit attorney but this is NOT legal advice. I can give general information but case specific issues should be addressed by a trusted and verified attorney.

On May 8, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Alert PA-2026-01, titled "Deferred Action as an Extraordinary Use of Prosecutorial Discretion."

First: DACA has not been terminated.

I want to say that plainly before anything else. This policy alert does not end DACA. No one's existing grant has been revoked by this document. If you have a valid DACA grant right now, it remains valid.

So what did USCIS actually do?

USCIS moved the policy guidance on deferred action from Volume 3 of the Policy Manual (Humanitarian Protection and Parole) into Volume 1 (General Policies and Procedures). More substantively, the memo reframes deferred action as an "extraordinary" tool to be used only in individual, compelling cases rather than for broad categories of people.

The key point:

USCIS is stating that granting deferred action to large populations without detailed case-by-case review is inconsistent with how prosecutorial discretion should work. That is a direct conceptual challenge to how DACA was designed.

Why does this matter for DACA specifically?

DACA is, by design, a categorical program. It covers a defined class of people who came to the U.S. as children. This memo is a direct philosophical and legal challenge to that structure, even if it doesn't name DACA explicitly.

The memo also includes a "Reliance Interest Analysis," which is a legal term of art. This section is essentially a preemptive argument against the type of court challenge that slowed or blocked previous DACA termination attempts. USCIS is arguing that because deferred action has always been described as temporary and discretionary, people should not have built long-term expectations around it. Courts have weighed reliance interests before (see DHS v. Regents, 2020), and this section reads like preparation for future litigation.

What this means practically:

-For current DACA holders with valid grants: no immediate change, but renewals deserve close attention going forward.

-For pending DACA renewals: this guidance is effective immediately for pending requests. That warrants real attention.

-For new DACA applicants: the pathway was already severely constrained by prior litigation. This adds further uncertainty.

Bottom line:

This is not a fire alarm. It is a clear signal of direction. The administration is laying legal and policy groundwork. Whether this leads to formal DACA termination, a rule change, or further litigation is not yet determined. But this needs to be watched closely.

I am an immigration attorney, but this is not legal advice. If you have DACA or are close to someone who does, consult with an immigration attorney about your specific situation. Do not rely on social media, including this post, as legal advice.

AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association) put out an alert yesterday after members across the country started getting reports that USCIS field and asylum offices were placing adjudications on hold. This is reportedly tied to a new security vetting process that kicked in on April 27, 2026.

The short version: fingerprints previously submitted for FBI checks are apparently no longer sufficient. Almost all pending cases will need fingerprints resubmitted. Naturalization applicants with oath ceremonies already scheduled might be exempt, but that is not confirmed.

What we don't know: how long this takes, how many cases are affected, or when USCIS will make an official statement. They have not announced this publicly yet.

One practical tip while you wait: double check that your address on file with USCIS is current. If they send a notice to an old address you could miss something important. You can update it through your USCIS online account or by submitting an AR-11. If you’re an asylum seeker don’t forget to update your field office directly.

Will update this thread as more information comes out. Happy to answer questions in the comments.

AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association) put out an alert yesterday after members across the country started getting reports that USCIS field and asylum offices were placing adjudications on hold. This is reportedly tied to a new security vetting process that kicked in on April 27, 2026.

The short version: fingerprints previously submitted for FBI checks are apparently no longer sufficient. Almost all pending cases will need fingerprints resubmitted. Naturalization applicants with oath ceremonies already scheduled might be exempt, but that is not confirmed.

What we don't know: how long this takes, how many cases are affected, or when USCIS will make an official statement. They have not announced this publicly yet.

One practical tip while you wait: double check that your address on file with USCIS is current. If they send a notice to an old address you could miss something important. You can update it through your USCIS online account or by submitting an AR-11. If you’re an asylum seeker don’t forget you have to update your address change directly with the field office.

Will update this thread as more information comes out. Happy to answer questions in the comments.