•New Visa Bans Do NOT Apply to Artists •USCIS Raises Premium Processing Fees! •Conscionable Cancellations •USCIS On-Line Payment Problems •Consulate Conundrums •Recent RFE Trends •The Path to Stardom
LAW & DISORDER
Performing Arts Division
22 January 2026
Dear Reader
Happy New Year!....which lasted only about 72 hours before the imitation crab of emperors invaded a sovereign nation and proclaimed himself President, sent storm troopers assembled from scrap metal, meth, racism, and rage into US cities, set his eyes on Greenland like a bat on a bloated hog carcass, and demanded Sauron give him the Ring of Power.
As we wait for Nostradumbass to invade Hawaii before realizing it’s already a state, here’s what’s happening in our office.
Legal (and not so legal) Issue(s) of the Month
Conscionable Cancellations
Speaking of invasions, as Trump continues to cause more harm to the Kennedy name than RFK Jr., numerous artists have cancelled appearances for future performances at the Kennedy Center, some citing a loss of the Center's apolitical cultural mission and infringement on artistic values and others expressing that they cannot support performing in an institution that now reflects the corrupt ideologies of the Trump regime. In addition to Washington National Opera severing ties after 55 years in residence at Kennedy Center and the annual Martin Luther King Day concert Let Freedom Ring moving to a new venue after being performed as a signature event at the Kennedy Center for more than 20 years, these include the national touring production of Hamilton, Chuck Redd, The Cookers, Stephen Schwartz, Issa Rae, Béla Fleck, Rhiannon Giddens, Low Cut Connie, Kristy Lee, Sonia De Los Santos, Martha Graham Dance Company, Doug Varone and Dancers, Balún, and Amanda Rheaume, as well as both Renée Fleming and Ben Folds stepping down as artistic advisors
Like most others in our field, my affection for the Kennedy Center is deep, both professionally and personally, extending back to when my parents took me there for my first orchestra concert, ballet, opera, etc. Nonetheless, I applaud these artists—particularly as their decisions risk petulant responses from the US Government such as lawsuits and political retaliations.
But it’s not just the Kennedy Center suffering the fallout from Trump’s blitz of America. Both domestic and foreign artists are choosing to cancel engagements or avoid the US entirely. For some, its purely due the economic risk of spending thousands of dollars to obtain a visa, only to have it denied. For others, it’s the fear of being arrested or detained at the border due to political opinions expressed on social media or for performances deemed “anti-American.” Some simply do not want their physical presence to be seen as an endorsement of what America has become. Domestic US artists are re-thinking engagements in cities invaded by ICE or at venues where civil rights or freedom of speech has been curtailed. Venues, too, are seeking to avoid artists that might further unrest in their communities or where economic risks of a cancelled engagement have become too great.
Regardless of the moral, ethical, and honourable justifications of a cancellation, it still results in lost income and damages to the parties involved. Cancellations due to an event or obstacle which either no one could have foreseen, or which was outside of a party’s control—such as fires, floods, electrical blackouts, etc—have always been considered Acts of God or “Force Majeure” events which allow a party to void the entire contract without consequences or further obligations to the other. However, unless there are specific contractual terms—such as “onset of fascism” or “acts of dictator”—a cancellation for any other reasons is a breach of the contract.
Given that the precarious environment in which we find ourselves is unlikely to change anytime soon, the performing arts industry needs to prepare for more disruptions, not less, and address contingencies not just at the outset of the booking process, but throughout the season. What about an artist or venue who needs to cancel due to the sudden eruption of protests or violence? What about cancelling an engagement due to a non-US artist or group actually being denied a visa or refused entry, or just the likelihood of a denial or refused entry? What if immigration rules change suddenly without notice? What if funding or financing is pulled due to a political crisis or a recession? What about when a non-profit is officially threated with a revocation of its non-profit status if it proceeds with DEI programming?
We are in very unchartered waters and rules change daily.
To keep the curtains rising, we need to start having these conversations frequently and often. We also need to accept the reality that we are all in this together. Most presenters, producers, and venues have no more easy access to cash reserves than most artists and ensembles. No one in the performing arts—for profits, non-profits, artists, groups, managers, agents, ensembles—is necessarily better positioned to handle losses than others. Rather, losses can be shared, plans can be contingent, projects can be postponed or re-imagined, and risks can be accessed and allocated. Even though the answers may come later, we at least need to start having the discussions.
Dear Law and Disorder: Actual questions we get asked and the answers people actually don’t want
"The Path to Stardom”
Dear Law & Disorder:
My daughter aspires to a future career as a professional entertainer, hoping to reach some level of stardom. The photographer who took her school’s class photo’s last year has reached out claiming that she is very photogenic and asking for the rights to post her headshot photo on their website. She thinks this will lead to a modelling career and a path to stardom. While I don’t doubt that this offer holds the potential to provide a certain level of fame (based on the near-daily barrage of ads I receive from this company), how do I convince my tween than the attached terms and conditions are less than generous?
As for your budding celebrity, my concern is not that lack of fee, but, rather, that the release is not limited solely to advertisements for the school photo company. The license says they can use it for ANY promotion of ANY company or product. Whilst they seem perfectly reputable and a quick google search reveals no complaints and nothing untoward, that's still a little too open for my tastes. You never know who they will sell their photos to or where they will end up. Also, as her name will not be listed and she will not be credited, it's not really going to afford her any publicity or exposure. If she is determined, I don't see any real risks, it's just that she will get nothing out of it. No one is going to seek out a school's photo company's website to find models or artists. The only one who will benefit is the photo company. If the photos are that good, she’d be better off starting an Instagram page, facechatting, ticktocketing, tweeting, bleeping, blurping, or whatever it is the “kids” do today to get attention.
Artist Visa News & Nausea
1. The Newly Announced “Visa” Ban Does Not Apply to Artist Visas
Many of you awoke last week, as I did, to the news that Trump was “suspending immigrant visa processing for 75 nations.” Understandably, this caused immediate concerns and panic with regard to artist visas which, in turn, caused me to be aroused from bed at the crack of 10:30am to address them.
THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ARTIST VISAS!
This new rule applies only to “immigrant visas” (more commonly known as “green cards”). The term "visa" is confusing because US immigration law employs the term "visa" to refer to a document that allows a person to enter the US for multiple different reasons and purposes. An “immigrant visa” is for someone inconceivably seeking to become a permanent resident of the US as opposed to a “non-immigrant visa” which is a for a person coming to live and work “temporarily” in the US—such as a student or artist.
Whilst the list seems to be changing every day, all green card applications are being suspended for the citizens of the following countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. Whilst citizens of these countries (unless they hold dual citizenship with a country not on the list) will not be issued green cards, they can—theoretically, at least—continue to apply for work visas (such as O and P artist visas) and be issued visa stamps, which are known as “non-immigrant” visas.
Notwithstanding the banned “Green Card” list there remains a list of 20 countries whose citizens (unless those who hold citizens with a country not on the list) are subject to a ban on ALL travel to the US under any circumstances: Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Mali, Niger, Palestinian Authority Travel Documents, Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria. There also remains a list of 20 countries whose citizens (unless those who hold citizens with a country not on the list) are barred from student, business and visitor visas (but not work visas): Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burundi, Cote d ‘Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Regardless of any official lists of countries the US does or does not like at any given time, the overarching Executive Orders from early 2025 remain in place confirming that the US Government can deny a visa petition, refuse to issue a visa stamp, or indefinitely suspend processing to anyone from any country, for any reason or “just because.” For example, there are increasing reports that USCIS has been taking additional time to process visa petitions for beneficiaries merely born in any country targeted by the administration, regardless of whether an applicant has dual citizenship or sole citizenship with a country not on a naughty list, and regardless of whether a petition has been premium processed (and, no, you don’t get a refund if USCIS suspends even Premium Processing for security reasons.) So, whilst artists from certain countries, indeed, face a greater level or risk than others, they have no more reason to panic now than they already have been since this time last year.
2. The USCIS Premium Processing Fee Is Being Raised to $2965 Effective 1 March 2026.
USCIS announced on 12 January that, effective 1 March 2026, the Premium Processing fee is being raised from $2805 to $2965. Any Premium Processing fees received after 1 March 2026 will be rejected unless they include the new fee. In addition, USCIS announced that, henceforth, the Premium Processing fees “…will continue to be adjusted agencywide to account for inflation and protect the real dollar value of the premium processing service we provide.” Given that Standard Processing is now taking 9 – 12 months, requiring almost all petitions to be filed through Premium Processing, the “real dollar value” of Premium Processing is less than that of an expired Cologuard box.
3. USCIS On-Line Fee Payment Problems
And speaking of filing fees…not that this will come as a shock to anyone, but we continue to receive reports that USCIS’s new mandatory “on-line” fee payment scheme (which isn’t really “on-line” at all) is resulting in petitions being wrongfully rejected for alleged non-payment of fees or incorrect fees. While pure speculation, this could be due to the fact that, rather than being allowed to actually go “on-line” and enter our bank or credit card information ourselves, we must provide that information on a physical form that is sent to USCIS where we then must depend on someone who once tried to deep-fry a turkey in their bathtub to enter the information correctly. Moreover, whilst the forms allow the payor to indicate the amount being paid, the forms provide no place to indicate the artist or group for whom the fee is being paid or what the fee is for.
Whether paying by credit card (Form G-1450) or ACH/Bank Transfer (Form G-1650), we strongly recommend that you write or type in the name of the beneficiary and what the fee is for on the form, and then highlight that information in a bold, primary school colour.
Also, if you are taking advantage of the reduced filing fees for non-profits or small employers, we suggest you print out the USCIS fee chart and highlight the filing fee you are eligible for. In addition:
If you are eligible for the reduced fee for non-profits provide USCIS with a copy of your organization’s 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Determination Letter.
If you are taking advance of the reduced fees for small employers, provide USCIS with a copy of your most recent IRS Form 941 showing that you employee at least one (but less than 25) employees.
If for any reason you receive a rejection notice alleging non-payment or an incorrect fee, immediately resubmit. Do not try to fight it.
4. Passports Validity Dates Must Cover the Approved Visa Validity Period
It has always been the rule that a US Consulate will not issue a visa stamp unless the applicant’s passport has at least 6 months validity remaining beyond the dates of the person’s trip to the US. For short term tours and performances, this has rarely been a problem. However, artists with longer visa classification periods (such as artist with an O-1 visa valid for 2 years) are being confronted at the border when trying to enter the US if their passports are not valid for 6 months beyond the full visa validity period…even where they have applied for a new passport and it just hasn’t arrived yet or even if they only plan on staying a few months.
For example, an artist with an approved O-1 visa for a classification period of April 6, 2026 through April 5, 2028, but whose passport expires on October 1, 2026, was admitted into the US, only through October 1, 2026. He was told he would either have to leave by September 30, 2026 or apply for an “extension of stay.”
So, any artist holding a visa with a long-term classification should ensure that their passport is valid for the full length of the visa classification period…and not just for 6 months beyond the length of their intended stay. Even if this means having to travel with two passports: the old one with the visa stamp and the new one with the longer validity period.
5. Consulate Conundrums
Many people are reporting extended processing times at US Consulates of 2 – 3 weeks or longer, as well as increasing incidents of “administrative processing” whereby an artist’s visa stamp application is tossed into a black hole for additional security clearances, background checks, etc. This was not unanticipated given the increasing demands on consulates to increase vetting on all visa stamp applications in all categories (particularly those of citizens from certain countries), including taking the time to search even a major music director’s social media, urination frequency, and dietary restrictions.
As has always been the case, there are no requirements for a consulate to provide any reason for the Administrative Processing and no requirements for a consulate to provide any estimates or timelines for how long an application can languish in Administrative Processing. Allowing for these additional delays only further mandates the need for Premium Processing for almost all artist visa petitions and adds to the massive unpredictability of the entire process…particularly as even Congressional intervention for expediates are being routinely rejected.
6. Recent Trends in RFEs (Requests for Evidence)
We never know whether an RFE is from a rogue Examiner or a new trend. However, exhaustive experience has shown that yesterday’s rogue Examiner is tomorrow’s “USCIS Examiner of the Month.” As such, here’s what we have seen and what’s been reported to us:
1. RFE for Evidence that an artist has been “working as an artist” in the US.
Artists who live or spend the majority of their time in the US with a long-term O-1 visa or P-1 visa are receiving RFEs for their subsequent O-1 petitions asking for “evidence” that they have, in fact, maintained their status as an artist—such as pay stubs, bank records, tax documents, or other payment receipts. Presumably, USCIS is probing for artists who may be supplementing their income with non-artist work or those who do not have “regular employment.” We have yet to see any petitions denied for this reason, but, just in case, we advise making a special effort to keep contracts and other evidence of the receipt of fees and payments from engagements and performances.
2. Continued RFEs Challenging O-2, P-1S and P-3S Support Petitions
We have been reporting on this for a year now, so this issue appears here to stay: USCIS continues to issue moronic RFEs challenging that support stuff (O-2, P-1S, and P-3S Beneficiaries) lack sufficient experience with their primary artists or groups, that their services are necessary, or that they cannot be replaced with US workers. Not only have RFEs such as these not been limited to petitions for artists or groups from any particular country, but major, award-winning, internationally heralded artists and groups have received them as well.
For example, recently an award-winning group was engaged to bring a new production to the US as part of the show’s world premiere tour. In addition to the group’s P-1 petition, the group filed a petition for the show’s original production team (director, lighting designer, etc.) to come with them. USCIS issued an RFE. Whilst acknowledging that the P-1S Beneficiaries were, in fact, the original production team and that they had, in fact, all worked with the group to create and produce the show, USCIS claimed the team had not worked with the group long enough to constitute having a “significant relationship.” According to USCIS, because the initial creation and rehearsal period of the show was less than a year, this was not “of sufficient length” to make the production team “critical” or “irreplaceable.” In addition, because this would be the world premiere tour and the show had thus far only been performed once, USCIS contended that the team could easily be replaced.
Do we think that such nonsense is targeted on the arts in particular? No. It’s just part of the egalitarian idiocy that reigns—which is all the more reason to keep the arts off their radar screen and, not in fact, become the mouse that roared. Instead, be prepared to provide detailed CVs/resumes for all support crew and staff—NOT summaries or a brief bio claiming “Mr. Pevensey has extensive experience throughout the West End,” but providing specific dates and venues. Also, be prepared to provide documentation and other types of evidence to provide what each person has done for the artist or group in the past, why their services are critical to the performances in the US, and why they cannot be replaced.
Deep Thoughts…
“There is one thing in the world worse than being talked about…and that is not being talked about.”
~ Oscar Wilde
Send Us Your Questions: Let us know what you'd like to hear more about.
Send us an email, post on Facebook, mail us a letter, dispatch a messenger, raise a smoke signal, reach out telepathically, or use whatever method works for you.
THE OFFICIAL LEGALESE:
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!
The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty or threatening email to someone, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about.