An immigration law firm has criticized the U.S. State Department over what it says are cases of long-term H-1B visa holders being unable to return to the United States after traveling abroad for family medical emergencies.
Banias Law, an immigration litigation firm, said in a post on X that it was “heartbreaking for longterm #H1Bs to travel to help their families during medical emergencies only to be stopped from returning to their lives by a bad faith @StateDept apparatus trying to help @SecRubio political future.”
The firm argued that the situation stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Department of State v. Muñoz, adding: “This is a consequence of #SCOTUS’s Munoz decision from 2024. #BeBetter.”
READ: Missed $600 traffic fine leads to H-1B visa revocation warning (July 12, 2026)
The firm did not give additional context.
An Indian couple recently found themselves in a situation similar to the one highlighted by Banias Law. According to a media report, the couple said they were hesitant to travel to India to be with the wife’s mother, who was battling advanced cancer, because they feared delays in returning to the United States could jeopardize their jobs. Under current rules, leaving the U.S. requires visa stamping at a consulate in India along with social media screening and administrative delays, making re-entry uncertain.
This comes during a time of tightening rules and increasing polarization around the subject of immigration and visas. Banias has brought up this topic several times on X, discussing H-1B fees, USCIS’s decision to suspend biometrics and ICE policies.
Recently, a H-1B visa holder shared how failing to pay a $600 traffic fine by a court-imposed deadline resulted in the revocation of his U.S. visa. The individual later admitted that he “deeply regrets” not paying the traffic penalty on time.
Beyond H-1B visas, birthright citizenship has also become a growing topic of discussion. President Donald Trump recently announced on his social media platform Truth Social of his plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its recent landmark decision upholding birthright citizenship.
READ: Who are American students who are no longer the majority? (July 12, 2026)
The Supreme Court had ruled that Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, reaffirming that individuals born on U.S. soil are entitled to U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Trump’s executive order sought to narrow that interpretation by limiting automatic citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Under the proposal, babies born in the United States to temporary visitors or to parents living in the country without legal authorization would no longer automatically receive U.S. citizenship at birth.