Legal Affairs Counsel’s Corner: USCIS New Immigration Vetting Center

Seso's Barron Dickinson breaks down key policy updates for December 2025.

USCIS Establishes New Vetting Center to Strengthen Immigration Screening

On December 5, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the creation of a dedicated Vetting Center in Atlanta, Georgia, that is designed to centralize and enhance the screening and vetting of foreign nationals across the U.S. immigration system. The new center will support more robust background checks and security reviews, using both classified and non-classified resources — including advanced technology and interagency cooperation — to identify individuals who may pose threats to national security, public safety, or who have engaged in fraud.

Once fully operational, the Vetting Center will conduct supplemental reviews of pending applications and retroactively assess certain already-approved cases, with priority attention on applicants from presidentially designated countries of concern. While USCIS has not yet specified how long these enhanced reviews will take, employers should anticipate the potential for extended processing times and consider strategic filing practices, such as early submissions and the use of proactive information disclosures (i.e. grower contact information for H-2ALCs). 

Recent 11th Circuit Decision Provides Additional Clarity Regarding Permissible Deductions and Compensable Time Under FLSA and Florida’s Minimum Wage Laws

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit delivered a notable win for staffing firms on wage-hour rules governing optional expenses. In Villarino v. Pacesetter Personnel Service, the court held that an employer may lawfully deduct the cost of optional job-site transportation from workers’ wages and is not required to compensate workers for certain pre-shift travel and waiting time, provided the transportation is genuinely optional, workers have meaningful alternatives, and the activity is not integral and indispensable to the employees’ principal job duties. The court emphasized that voluntary benefits—when clearly documented and avoidable—do not automatically trigger minimum-wage or compensable-time violations.

For H-2A employers in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, however, it is critical to understand that this decision does not change longstanding regulatory requirements under the H-2A program. Employers remain fully responsible for providing inbound transportation from the worker’s place of recruitment to the employer’s U.S. worksite (or reimbursing those costs once the three-quarters guarantee is met), outbound transportation at the end of the contract, and daily transportation between employer-provided housing and worksites—all at no cost to the worker. These transportation obligations are mandatory conditions of the H-2A program and may not be treated as optional benefits or recouped through payroll deductions, regardless of how similar issues may be analyzed under the Fair Labor Standards Act in non-H-2A contexts.

The decision does, however, reinforce an important wage-hour principle relevant to H-2A compliance with respect to meals. Consistent with existing guidance, employers may lawfully take a meal credit—currently capped at $16.28 per day—under the FLSA and Florida minimum wage law, provided the employer strictly complies with Section 3(m) of the FLSA and the H-2A-specific requirements incorporated through 20 C.F.R. § 655.173(a). This includes ensuring meals are bona fide, primarily for the benefit of the worker, accurately valued, and properly documented. As with transportation, employers should carefully distinguish between costs that may be lawfully credited or deducted under the H-2A regulations and those that must be provided entirely free of charge, and should review meal policies and payroll practices accordingly before implementation.

For more information on the implications of this decision, employers should review this helpful article from Fisher Phillips: Staffing Firms Just Scored a Key Win on Recouping Expenses: 7 Key Takeaways and Practical Steps For Your Business. 

United Farm Workers Challenge DOL’s Revised H-2A Wage Methodology

In late-November, United Farm Workers (UFW), along with affiliated organizations, filed a lawsuit in federal court in California challenging the Department of Labor’s Interim Final Rule effective October 2, 2025, which substantially revised how Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWRs) are calculated under the H-2A program. The lawsuit seeks to invalidate the new wage methodology, which relies more heavily on USDA Farm Labor Survey data for certain agricultural occupations and, in some cases, results in lower required wage rates than those produced under the prior methodology tied to broader Bureau of Labor Statistics data. UFW argues that the revised approach unlawfully depresses wages for both domestic and H-2A workers, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, and undermines statutory protections intended to prevent adverse effects on U.S. farmworkers.

Industry groups and agricultural employers, however, view the lawsuit as a direct challenge to what they describe as a long-overdue, data-driven reform intended to better align H-2A wages with actual agricultural labor markets and job classifications. Supporters of the rule argue that the prior AEWR system overstated wage obligations for many positions, increased labor costs unpredictably, and threatened the viability of H-2A participation for growers already facing thin margins. While the litigation proceeds, the revised wage methodology remains in effect unless and until a court orders otherwise. H-2A employers should continue to comply with current DOL guidance, monitor the case closely, and be prepared for potential changes depending on the outcome of the litigation or future regulatory action.