Corporate immigration is under pressure. Delays are growing, standards are shifting, and once-routine petitions are now triggering extra scrutiny. For law firms guiding clients through this legal minefield, it’s no longer enough to rely on what worked last year. To make sense of the new landscape, we turned to DiRaimondo & Schroeder LLP, a Brooklyn-based immigration firm known for turning complex cases into confident wins. Founding partner Dana DiRaimondo brings firsthand insight from years inside one of the largest immigration firms in the world. She explains why their hands-on, attorney-led model makes all the difference.
In this Q&A, Dana lays out what’s changing, where firms need to step in early, and how to protect clients from escalating risks. From creative talent visas to investor plans derailed by delays, this conversation is packed with practical takeaways for any firm advising businesses with international talent.
What Are the Biggest Changes in Corporate Immigration Law That Law Firms Should Be Aware of This Year?
Dana: While there have been a host of alarming changes, one of the biggest things we’re seeing already is a much more difficult and unpredictable adjudication climate. With United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), we’re starting to see challenges and Requests for Evidence (RFEs) on extremely strong petitions that unquestionably meet the regulatory standards and would likely have been approved without issue last year.
At the State Department, we’re seeing delays, partly due to the rollback of initiatives that cut down on the need for in-person interviews for visa renewals. Consular Officers carrying out Trump’s “enhanced vetting” mandate have led to more scrutiny, difficult questioning, and increased administrative processing delays.
From Customs and Border Protection (CBP), we’re hearing reports of more individuals sent for secondary screening when clearing immigration at the airport and their travel and immigration history being more heavily scrutinized.
For law firms advising corporate clients, this unpredictability means even routine immigration matters now carry greater risk. Delays and heightened scrutiny can disrupt business operations, impact talent acquisition, and create unexpected compliance issues. Firms without deep immigration expertise should recognize these warning signs early and bring in an immigration attorney before a simple filing turns into a costly problem.
How Are Recent Policy Shifts Affecting H-1B Visa Approvals for Tech and Finance Firms?
Dana: It’s still early, which makes it difficult to determine whether some of what we’re seeing may be a one-off issue or the start of new adjudication trends.
While Trump 2.0 doesn’t seem as openly hostile toward high-skilled immigration and H-1B visas (which are heavily relied on for hiring foreign tech and finance professionals), based on our experience from Trump 1.0, employers should prepare for a more challenging adjudication climate—especially for cases with less straightforward fact patterns (e.g., where the foreign national holds a degree not obviously related to the position, such as a Physics degree for a Quantitative Analyst).
We’re affirmatively preparing petitions to address any potential perceived vulnerabilities in the hope of making the adjudicator understand these nuances and hopefully avoiding an RFE. This “defensive” posture tends to add time and cost to the visa process.
One bit of good news is that just before leaving office, President Biden issued new H-1B regulations that largely codify existing USCIS adjudication practices. This makes it more difficult for the Trump Administration to make significant policy changes that would formally alter adjudication standards for H-1B visas.
So, while we’re still gearing up for a harsher adjudication climate, the codification of these practices gives immigration lawyers more ammunition in responding to rogue adjudications.
Immigration strategy should be integrated into broader risk assessments for firms handling corporate transactions, workforce planning, or compliance for clients that rely on high-skilled foreign talent. A misstep in the visa process can lead to business disruptions, talent loss, and even compliance issues.
What Should Law Firms Advise Clients About the Evolving Requirements for Investor Visas?
Dana: Corporate and tax lawyers advising international clients on U.S. expansion should flag immigration strategy as an essential part of their guidance. We tell clients they need to have an immigration plan right alongside their business plan. Structuring investments without considering visa implications can lead to unintended roadblocks.
There are two types of investor visas. The E-2 is a nonimmigrant (temporary) investor visa most often applied for directly at a U.S. consulate outside the U.S. Adjudication varies greatly from post to post. At present, there have been no regulatory changes to E-2 visas, though we’ve seen more difficult adjudications from some posts.
When applying for an E-2 visa, we’re advising individuals to ensure they’ve spent down a sufficient amount of investment capital. We’re also encouraging applicants starting a new business to work with visa-specialized business plan writers to demonstrate sufficient growth projections.
The other type is an EB-5 immigrant visa (green card). These require investors to make an at-risk investment of at least $800,000 in a new commercial enterprise that creates at least 10 jobs during a 2-year period. While President Trump has made statements about replacing the EB-5 program with a “Golden Visa,” it’s unclear whether this will actually replace the program or be introduced as an additional option. Because the EB-5 program was created by Congress via legislation, it’s not something the President has the authority to eliminate via executive action.
Are There Any Common Pitfalls Law Firms Should Help Their Clients Avoid When Filing for Extraordinary Ability Visas?
Dana: Entertainment and corporate lawyers working with artists, influencers, or production teams should be aware that a casual approach to immigration compliance can derail careers and business plans. Flagging potential visa requirements early allows clients to avoid last-minute complications.
The type of visa most used in these scenarios is the O-1B visa. O-1s are often extremely document-intensive with lots of room for subjectivity in the adjudication process.
One common pitfall is that agencies and artists want to file the visa petition ASAP and don’t want to take the time to thoroughly document their case. This may ultimately result in an RFE and further delays, so it’s better to prepare a strong case from the outset.
Another pitfall is that creatives will have portfolio work done in the U.S. without appropriate work authorization. This means we cannot use it to support their O-1B visa. Frequently, because these individuals were getting paid outside the U.S. and are asked to come in for a short photoshoot or event, they assume they don’t need U.S. work authorization, which is unfortunately not the case in most instances.
What Strategies Can Law Firms Use to Navigate the Increasing Scrutiny on Visa Petitions and Compliance Audits?
Dana: For firms handling mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, HR compliance, or internal investigations, immigration-related vulnerabilities can be an overlooked risk factor. Proactive compliance measures—like internal audits and site inspection readiness—can prevent minor issues from escalating into significant compliance lapses that can result in hefty fines (sometimes in the millions of dollars).
For the actual filings, one helpful thing our firm does is track all RFEs we receive to look for clear adjudication trends and problematic adjudicating officers. This proved critical under Trump 1.0, when often there weren’t formal regulatory or policy changes, and the agency instead “created policy via RFE.”
By affirmatively tracking issues raised in RFEs and denials, we can spot trends earlier and proactively adjust our case preparation strategy to minimize additional delays and costs for our clients. Where we see an RFE was issued by a “problematic officer,” this can sometimes inform our strategy recommendations (e.g., withdraw and refile in the hopes of getting the petition before a different officer rather than responding to the RFE).
With respect to compliance audits, we always encourage our clients to conduct periodic internal audits, including I-9 audits and Public Access File (PAF) audits, and to ensure they’ve created or updated site inspection protocols in the event a Department of Homeland Security officer comes knocking. While these types of audits and site visits can happen anytime, this is especially important now, when the climate has become more hostile to immigrants.
How Can Law Firms Support Clients Facing Unexpected Delays or Denials in the Current Immigration Climate?
Dana: Keeping clients informed is key. Clients need to be aware of the climate from the outset so they know what’s happening with adjudications, understand any potential vulnerabilities specific to their case or the visa classification, and can prepare for likely outcomes and make contingency plans.
Staying on top of legal updates (which have been coming rapidly since January 20th) is critical to helping our clients avoid missing information that could impact their active cases or foreign national employees. At D&S, we track all legal updates internally, and in addition to sharing updates publicly, we email individual clients with important updates likely to impact their foreign national employee population, guiding actions needed to ensure continued compliance in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.
Beyond that, because we’re seeing a high volume of adjudications each day and because we amassed a lot of data during Trump 1.0, we’re able to spot adjudication trends and potential policy shifts early, pivot strategies to address them, and help avoid or minimize case processing delays.
Business law and employment lawyers should also recognize that immigration issues can have a ripple effect across other legal areas—affecting contractual obligations, business continuity, and workforce planning. When a key employee’s visa status is uncertain, it can impact M&A transactions and corporate structuring, making it essential to bring immigration counsel into the conversation early.
What Role Does Legal Marketing Play in Attracting Corporate Clients Who Need Immigration Services?
Dana: For smaller firms, in particular, where you may not be a “household name,” it can be a challenge to get yourself in front of new corporate clients unless they’ve worked with you before or were referred by someone who has. Legal marketing, including ensuring your website comes up in search results and your posts on relevant topics reach your target audience, will have an outsized impact on small and mid-sized firms.
At D&S, our marketing is built on three pillars: word-of-mouth referrals, thought leadership, and practical, high-value content that clients can actually use. But none of that works if the service itself isn’t exceptional. You can’t outmarket bad service. Our reputation is built on ensuring clients feel confident and in control throughout the process. We even train our associates to communicate with different audiences, from sophisticated in-house counsel to first-time visa applicants, so that every interaction reinforces trust and clarity.
How Can Firms Differentiate Themselves in the Competitive Field of Corporate Immigration Law?
Dana: Exceptional client service and work product are the best ways to differentiate a firm in a saturated market. While many lawyers can file a standard H-1B or a green card, being able to hold a client’s hand through the process, remain aware that they’re often dealing with more than just immigration as part of their role, ensure they’re empowered with knowledge to make informed decisions, be highly responsive, provide fast turnaround times, and produce excellent work product will allow firms to stand out, including from larger competitor firms.
We attribute much of our growth to this—whether one HR contact reaches out to another to ask about immigration counsel recommendations or our contact at Company A leaving and going to Company B and wanting their new employer to retain us as their immigration counsel, it’s all a direct result of our high level of service, which has been part of the firm’s ethos since day one.
What Are the Key Opportunities in Immigration Law Right Now That Firms Might Be Overlooking?
Dana: Many corporate lawyers focus on immigration only when a crisis arises—like a visa denial or compliance audit—but there’s a major opportunity in proactive planning. With increased enforcement on the horizon, companies that get ahead of compliance now can avoid costly penalties and operational disruptions later.
This is where firms without deep immigration expertise should flag risks early and bring in legal counsel. We help companies build immigration compliance into their broader legal and HR strategies, ensuring they’re not just reacting to problems but preventing them before they start. For law firms advising businesses with international talent, this isn’t just an immigration issue; it’s a business continuity issue.
Given the increased enforcement and compliance actions we expect from the new administration, now is a great time to help your clients proactively prepare for compliance audits. This will not only help your clients keep costs down by coming into compliance now and avoiding hefty fines for paperwork violations later, but it will also provide an additional revenue stream to your firm, making it a win-win.
Looking Ahead, How Should Law Firms Prepare for Potential Regulatory Shifts in the Next Year?
Dana: Staying on top of legal updates and tracking adjudication trends will be critical. For smaller firms in particular, organizations like the American Immigration Lawyers Association have chapters and listservs where you can share information with colleagues and learn from each other, which is invaluable in terms of preparing for adjudication trends and regulatory shifts but also pushing back when the agency in question is doing something they shouldn’t be.
