The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), together with immigration law firm Benach Pitney Reilly, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) decision to require new editions of Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ without advance notice or a transition period. The plaintiffs argue that the abrupt implementation has created significant risks for immigration attorneys, families, employers, and applicants whose filings may be rejected because of a form-version change announced only after the new requirement took effect.
Key Points at a Glance
- AILA and Benach Pitney Reilly filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- USCIS announced late on August 31, 2026 that revised Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ would be mandatory immediately.
- The plaintiffs contend that USCIS provided no advance public notice and no grace period for filings already prepared or in transit.
- The lawsuit alleges that the implementation conflicts with requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and established agency practice.
- Technical issues on the USCIS website reportedly created additional obstacles for practitioners and applicants trying to comply.
- AILA says it requested a grace period before filing suit, but USCIS did not provide the requested relief.
What Changed at USCIS?
On August 31, 2026, USCIS announced that new editions of Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ would be required for filings submitted from that date forward. According to AILA, the announcement was posted after 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time on the day the new requirement took effect. Because the updated forms became mandatory immediately, attorneys and applicants had little opportunity to adjust cases that had already been prepared, signed, mailed, or were otherwise ready for submission.
The Affidavit of Support forms are used in immigration cases to establish a qualifying sponsor’s financial responsibility for an intending immigrant. A sudden mandatory form-version change can therefore affect applications that are otherwise complete and ready to file.
Why the Change Has Triggered Litigation
AILA and its co-counsel argue that USCIS should not have imposed the revised forms without adequate notice or a reasonable implementation period. The plaintiffs contend that the agency’s approach may violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act, while also departing from longstanding agency practices for introducing substantive form changes.
AILA says the timing created immediate uncertainty for practitioners nationwide. Forms could already have been in the mail when the new requirement was announced, while other applications were being finalized for filing during a particularly time-sensitive period.
Potential Impact on Applicants and Attorneys
The plaintiffs warn that rejecting filings solely because they contain a prior edition of a form could create significant downstream consequences. Applicants may have to prepare and submit replacement forms, incur additional costs, and potentially experience delays in processing.
For some immigration matters, timing is especially important. A rejected filing can affect a family’s ability to preserve a filing date or complete an immigration benefit process within a limited eligibility window. AILA also warns that delays could have consequences involving work authorization, travel permission, and eligibility that depends on age or other time-sensitive requirements.
AILA’s Request for a Grace Period
Following the USCIS announcement, AILA asked the agency to provide a grace period so that filings prepared or mailed under the previously accepted editions could continue to be accepted. According to AILA, USCIS did not grant the requested relief.
AILA maintains that a transition period would reduce unnecessary rejections and give attorneys and applicants a reasonable opportunity to comply with the updated requirements.
Statements from the Legal Community
Jennifer Coberly, AILA’s Benefits Litigation Attorney, said the lack of notice and a grace period placed practitioners and applicants in an unnecessarily difficult position. Sarah Beth Pitney, a partner at Benach Pitney Reilly, described the immediate operational impact on her firm, including the need to prepare replacement Forms I-864 for time-sensitive cases. AILA Second Vice President Rekha Sharma-Crawford warned that abrupt form changes can increase costs, cause delays, and create potentially difficult-to-reverse consequences for applicants. Brian Green, Christopher W. Dempsey, and Zachary Ryan New also criticized the lack of advance notice and described the burden placed on attorneys and their clients.
What the Lawsuit Seeks to Address
At the center of the lawsuit is whether USCIS lawfully implemented the revised forms without advance notice and without a grace period for previously prepared filings. AILA and Benach Pitney Reilly are asking the federal court to address the legality of USCIS’s implementation and the potential harm caused by immediate rejection of filings based on the form edition used.
The case highlights the importance of clear transition procedures when federal agencies introduce mandatory changes to immigration forms routinely prepared and submitted by applicants and attorneys across the country.
Legal Representation
AILA and Benach Pitney Reilly are represented by Rekha Sharma-Crawford of Sharma-Crawford Attorneys; Brian Scott Green of the Law Office of Brian Green; Jennifer R. Coberly of the American Immigration Lawyers Association; Christopher W. Dempsey of Dempsey Law, PLLC; and Zachary Ryan New of Joseph & Hall, P.C.
Important Note
This article is a rewritten summary based on the source material provided. It is intended for informational and content purposes and should not be treated as legal advice. Readers should consult official USCIS and AILA materials and qualified immigration counsel for case-specific guidance.
Immigration Fleet Law Firm