•Artist Cancellation Ruled Free Speech • Fewer RFEs/More Visa Denials • Restrictions on Performances of Artists on Student Visas • Premium Processing Delays • Unread Contracts
LAW & DISORDER
Performing Arts Division
22 September 2026
Dear Reader
Sorry for the long gap since our last update. Foolishly, I kept waiting for a “lull” when I could take a refreshing pause to provide a definitive summary of recent news and updates in the performing arts, particularly with regard to US artist visas. That pause never came. To the contrary, since our last post, Trump has managed to get defeated by both Iran as well as algae, forced Canada for the first time to raise its national security threat alert from “irritated” to “quite cross,” and renamed more geographical features than Admiral Byrd on a drunken bender, including changing South Africa to “South America 2.0.” Over the same span of time, construction has begun on the world’s largest arch dedicated to the man with the world’s smallest genitalia, the FBI no longer considers bestiality to be a disqualifying factor for becoming an FBI agent so long as the animal initiated the encounter (seriously, this is true…look it up!), and the 4th great-grandson of King George III used the occasion of 250th Birthday of the American rebellion to eloquently remind its congressional carcass to its face that his grandfather was right all along. Clearly, the aliens running our matrix are just screwing with us now. I can’t honestly even recall what normal is supposed to look like.
In the meantime, life in the arts remains ever challenging and changing, whilst the landscape of US artist visas remains ever outrageously abominable and abominably outrageous. In fact, so much regarding US artist visas remains in a state of flux and uncertainty, that to get this post done I finally had just to draw an arbitrary line and report what is known at the moment.
First, indulge me in few more benign matters of interest, if nothing more than to show there remains a world outside the busted condom of US immigration.
Legal (and not so legal) Issue(s) of the Month
Judge Tosses Kennedy Center Suit Against Musician
Who Cancelled Christmas Eve Show Based on Free Speech
Once Trump took over the Kennedy Center and began scratching his name onto every edifice and orifice, artists, audiences, staff, and donors began the process of scratching their names off—including drummer and vibraphonist Chuck Redd who cancelled his annual Christmas Eve jazz concert, an event he had been hosting for nearly 20 years. The Kennedy Center sued Mr. Redd for $1 million in damages for breach of contract.
In June, The Washington DC Superior Court granted Reed’s motion to dismiss under DC’s anti-SLAPP statute, a law designed to protect public interest speech from bullying lawsuits meant to silence public criticism. Essentially calling the lawsuit itself a political stunt, the judge ruled that the Center's lawsuit was an act of unlawful retaliation over protected speech. The Court further decreed that the Center must pay Redd $252,479.70 to cover his attorneys' fees and other legal costs.
The Kennedy Center has appealed. Meanwhile, Trump is still trying to get his name on a wall somewhere in the Center, even if it is just on the bathroom door outside the staff canteen and, as is normal for most patrons of the arts, is now threatening to demolish it entirely and focus, instead, on The Trump Pet Relief Area at Exit 54 of the Jersey Turnpike.
Dear Law and Disorder: Actual questions we get asked and the answers people actually don’t want
"Bless Your Heart”
Dear Law & Disorder:
I signed a contract last year with an agent. It’s not working out and I want to leave and get a different agent, but he says I can’t cancel for at least another year. I never read the contract. I just went through it and he’s right. I have to work with him for 2 years before I can leave with 90 days' notice. That seems unreasonable to me. Does that make it unenforceable?
I was raised in Virginia, where there is a saying: “bless your heart.” Like “ciao”, “interesting,” or “I’ve never seen a performance like that before,” it can mean different things depending upon context and inflection:
Those flowers you sent were so thoughtful. Bless your heart!
Your Aunt's in the hospital? Bless her heart!
Did you hear that Carol’s son was driving his car and got his arm stuck in the automatic car window again? Bless his heart!
So, you signed a contract you didn’t read and now you want to get out of it because, had you read it, you wouldn’t have signed it. I have never believed that using a contract to force people to work together—particularly between artists and agents—has ever produced good results. However, unless your agent has breached the contract or is willing to negotiate an exit strategy, then you are stuck with each other for now. Next time you buy a car, at least kick the tires before you drive it off the lot. Bless your heart!
Artist Visa News & Nausea
The US Department of Homeland (in)Security (“DHS”) has been quite busy in its ongoing efforts not just to discourage immigration but make Americans themselves want to emigrate. As is always the case, none of their plots and schemes are focused on the arts in particular. We are but collateral damage in a war being waged again the whole world—which is why I have always advocated staying off their radar screen. No one in Game of Thrones ever got anywhere by saying “Please.”
Nonetheless, the fall-out of new rules and procedures continues to rain acid upon us, including:
visa petitions are now more likely to be denied as opposed to receiving an RFE;
DHS has significantly curtailed the ability of artists to perform in the US on student visas;
USCIS has begun kicking premium processed visa petitions down to standard processing; and
whilst a court order currently prohibits USCIS from arbitrarily holding visa petitions indefinitely for “Enhanced Screening and Vetting Practices” with regard to artists from certain countries or with certain ethnic backgrounds, that policy could resume at any moment.
In fact, almost everything to follow continues to be embroiled in legal battles, court orders, appeals, holds, and decay, making any degree of predictability or planning almost impossible. Everything could change or could have already changed by the time you read this.
My best advice would be to seek out updates and news as frequently and often as possible prior to filing any visa petition, particularly from the League of American Orchestras’ iconic website artistsfromabroad.org which continues to be definitive guide focused specifically on obtaining the lasts news and information US visas for artists.
1. New Policies on Evidence and Requests for Evidence,
On August 5, 2026, DHS issued a new policy, effective immediately, encouraging USCIS examiners to deny visa petitions outright without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE).
Historically, USCIS examiners were directed to issue an RFE where they felt evidence was insufficient to support a requested visa classification and afford petitioners an opportunity to avoid a denial by providing more evidence or addressing examiner questions or alleged deficiencies. In the past, this has included addressing such probing queries from examiners as whether a conductor performs a lead or critical role with an orchestra, providing a detailed job description for an opera singer, asking for circulation numbers for The Sunday Times, and seeking clarification as to whether the Royal Opera House Covent Garden is, in fact, the same venue or two. (Yes, these are all true!). Going forward, examiners are now being encouraged to exercise their discretion to deny a petition if they believe the evidence provided with the petition is insufficient at the outset or if they have simply encountered large words they do not understand.
But there’s more.
In the past, an examiner issuing an RFE was encouraged to give petitioners the maximum response time: 90 days, and never fewer than 30. Under the new rule, an examiner who engages their largess to issue an RFE at all need only grant the bare minimum. Predictably, petitioners are already reporting RFEs demanding a response within 30 days of the date on the notice—and since USCIS will only send RFEs by mail that that mean less than 39 days by the time it arrives.
But there’s even more.
The new policy further encourages examiners to consider a hierarchy of evidence and supporting materials in determining whether a person qualifies for a specific visa category, creating distinctions between initial and additional evidence, primary and secondary evidence, and the evidentiary value of letters or affidavits submitted in lieu of documentary proof. Diminishing the value of letters and affidavits could make visa petitions for young or recently graduated artists even more challenging than they already are.
It is not at all uncommon for young artists not to be able to find a programme from an important concert or an official announcement of an award they won. In such cases, petitioners will often provide a copy of the artist’s engagement contract or letter from a venue or a producer confirming the artist’s performance. Similarly, petitioners will often provide USCIS with an affidavit or letter from a from a judge or jury member of a competition in lieu of an official announcement that an artist won a prize or received an award. Under the new guidance, an examiner could simply determine that such affidavits and letters are not a replacement for an actual programme or an award certificate and deny the petition without affording the petitioner an opportunity to supply any additional documentation of the award.
DHS contends that the prior rules “encouraged nefarious filing practices such as frivolous and placeholder filings to secure ancillary benefits” and asserts that “USCIS’ new policy will improve its ability to efficiently adjudicate benefit requests by discouraging frivolous, placeholder, or incomplete filings and requiring the requestor to meet his or her burden of proof by submitting complete benefit requests.”
The nefarious filing practices of a string quartet notwithstanding, it remains to be seen whether not DHS’s reference to discouraging “placeholder filings” means USCIS will now be even more rigid in approving requests for O or P classification periods to cover multiple US engagements over an extended period of time, particularly where there are large gaps between them. It was with much consternation and stern alarums that we recently encountered an RFE issued in response to an O-1 visa petition for a major, super-duper classical music superstar asking them to account for their time during a mere a 31-day gap between their US engagement dates. Though the petition was ultimately approved after providing documentation of their European engagements during this period, that does not bode well. In the interest of caution, whereas we used to recommend that any gaps in US itineraries be limited to 60 – 90 days, we will be reducing that recommendation to a maximum of 30 – 60 days.
These new rules will require petitioners to devote even greater time and effort gathering and providing as much supporting materials as they can to support a visa petition at the time the petition is filed. In the past, in an effort to get a petition filed quickly or to avoid additional time and hassle (or even just to see if luck would indeed be a lady), many petitioners would file a petition with a cursory or minimum amount of supporting materials, relying on the presumption that they could always provide additional materials if USCIS issued an RFE. That will no longer work. Relying on an RFE can no longer be viewed as an available fallback, nor can the presumption that the same degree of evidence USCIS accepted as evidence for a prior petition will be accepted in the future.
As the Royal Mystic High Order of the Knights of the League of American Orchestras further reports:
What this means for petitioners is that extra attention should be paid to the evidentiary standards for each classification before submitting a petition. Note the differences among the classifications and how, for example, O-1B criteria differ even as some may sound similar. Be sure that all parties — including the beneficiary and the agent if the beneficiary works with one — are very familiar with the kind of evidence that is required by USCIS.
The League report also includes specific reminders of basic types of evidence USCIS wants.
2. New F-1 rules Will Significantly Curtail Performances of Artists on US Student Visas.
Whilst the vast majority of international artists engaged to perform in the US do so on O or P visas, there are just as many US festivals, venues, and organizations that regularly engage artists who are studying in the US on student visas. On July 17, 2026, DHS announced a number of new rules, policy changes, and restrictions which will significantly impact not just the artists themselves, but those of you who work with, engage, or represent international student artists. These include restrictions on off-campus performances, restrictions on the types and number of degrees students can pursue, as well as fixed periods of time within which to obtain their degrees, and shorter grace periods between graduation and when they need to leave.
Some of these new rules went into immediate effect as of September 15, 2026 whereas others were temporarily blocked by the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts on September 14, 2026, with the longer-term outcome yet to be determined.
Students Will Be Given a Fixed Period of Time to Get In, Graduate, and Get Out
International students studying in the US receive an F-1 visa once they have been accepted into a degree-granting US school. Because some degrees can take longer to earn than others (such as doctoral programmes), as well as to accommodate school transfers, degree changes, etc, the longstanding policy has been for F-1 classification not to have a fixed classification end date by which the student had to leave the US. An artist with an O-1 visa, for example, will have a specific, fixed period within which to enter the US, perform, and leave. International students, on the other hand, were given F-1 classifications of D/S (“Duration of Status”). D/S allowed a student to remain in the US and automatically extend their F-1 classification so long as they continued to be enrolled as a student, even if they changed degree programmes, sought an additional degree, required additional time to complete their course of study, or transferred to a different school. The student was not required to seek permission from or file any applications with USCIS. Rather, the school simply needed to verify with DHS that the student was validly and actively enrolled as a student.
Under the new rules (which have been put on hold for now) all international students will be given F-1 visas with a fixed period of time—a maximum of four years or the program end date whichever comes first—within which to enter the US, earn their degree, and leave. If a student needs additional time to complete their degree for any reason, they will need to file a Form I-539 Extension of Stay (EOS) request with USCIS for additional time to continue their education. For example, if a student wants to change their degree programme from zither to sackbut and needs additional timGrade to locate a sackbut and complete the new programme, they will need to file an EOS request. If a student needs more time because they want to transfer schools, they will need to file an EOS request. If a student earns an undergraduate degree and wants stay in the US to pursue a master’s degree, they will need to file an EOS request. If they then want to pursue a doctorate, that, too, will require filing an EOS request.
Each EOS request could incur filing fees in excess of $3000. To avoid the additional EOS fees, a student could opt to depart the US and then seek permission to re-enter, but as the whole point is to discourage international students from coming to the US in the first place, the chances of them being allowed to re-enter after they have exceeded their initial time are less likely than winning a joust riding a narcoleptic horse.
In addition to imposing fixed graduation periods for international students, the new rule imposes new restrictions on changes in educational goals and school transfers. Among them, except for what USCIS determines “to be extenuating circumstances” in its sole, unrestricted, and undefined discretion:
Undergraduate students may not change majors or transfer schools in their first year of study.
Graduate tudents may not change graduate degree programmes or transfer schools at any time once they begin their programme. (For example, once a student begins classes for their Masters in Neolithic Chamber Music, they either must finish or leave the US.)
Neither undergraduate nor graduate students can pursue a second degree at the same or lower level—which would mean no double majors, major/minor programmes, or seeking two masters degrees.
In short, an international student’s entire ability to complete their US degree or even determine their course of education in the US will be in the haphazard hands of a USCIS Examiner whose own IQ score only makes sense in Celsius.
It has also been longstanding policy to permit an international student to remain in the US up to 60 days after graduation to either pack up and leave or apply for a different visa status allowing them to stay and work in the US, such as an O-1 or P-1 visa. Under the new rule (which has been put on hold for now), the grace period will be reduced to 30 days. This shorter grace period leaves substantially less time after graduation or practical training for artists to depart the US or file a change of status petition to an O or P. It means that should a change of status petition be denied during the grace period, the student could be declared in immediate overstay.
For now, DHS is barred from implementing these timing restrictions. But this is not end. The court did not strike the rule down, it merely put it on hold pending further litigation, arguments, and appeals. DHS has already filed an appeal, bemoaning that “DHS strongly disagrees with the court’s order and if the order is lifted, will take measures to implement the final rule.” At any time, pending litigation could result in the new rule being allowed to proceed immediately.
Restrictions on Off-Campus Performances and Engagements
Under current F-1 rules and regulations, international student artists have two avenues through which to obtain work authorization to perform off-campus while studying in the US: Curricular Practical Training (“CPT”) and Optional Practical Training (“OPT”).
CPT allows students who are actively working towards their degrees to accept an engagement, participate in a performance training programme, or accept any other type of off-campus artistic employment (paid or unpaid) that the student’s school determines is relevant, beneficent, or necessary to that specific student’s major area of study and to the student’s training as an artist. CPT is authorized directly by the school for a specific employer, for specific dates, and for a specific number of hours (part-time or full-time) and does not require the student to file an application for USCIS approval.
OPT grants international students open and unrestricted work authorization to work in their fields of study for up to 1 year after they graduate, allowing them to do whatever they want as artists in the US—perform, teach, compose, conduct, record, etc. An international student is automatically entitled to OPT upon graduation and simply needs to file an application for an OPT employment authorization card from USCIS prior to accepting any work or engagements—though “simply” includes a $470 application fee, a biometric appointment to be fingerprinted and probed, and having to pay an extra $2965 for premium processing.
Among the new rules and policy changes DHS announced on July 17, 2026, effective as of September 15, 2026, CPT is being narrowed to authorize only off-campus work which is officially required of every student in the same degree completion as a requirement for completing the degree.
Frustratingly, the US District Court’s September 14, 2026 ruling did not preclude or place on hold these new CPT restrictions, so they have now gone into effect—at least until they get challenged in court and we all get plunged into uncertainty once again. As a result, off-campus performances, recitals, concerts, and other engagements that have previously been permitted under CPT will no longer be approved unless such activities are required for every student seeking a degree in the same field of study—not just a requirement for a specific class, but for the degree itself. For example, an international student studying for a Bachelor of Music in Piano would not be allowed to use CPT to perform a recital at the Stewart Schiddy Centre for the Arts or perform a concerto with the Philharmonia Pancetta unless all students enrolled in the school’s BM degree programmes are required to engage in off-campus performances to earn their BM degree. This would also preclude an international student from using CPT to participate in residencies, music festivals, internships, or other artist programmes during the summer or between semesters unless all students in the same degree programme are required to do the same as a condition for graduation. In addition, any use of CPT will now also require the school to have a formal, cooperative agreement with a presenter seeking to engage an international student to ensure the student is being appropriately supervised.
The tremendous impact of this on international student artists cannot be overstated.
Not only is being able to participate in off-campus performances, festivals, and training programmes critical for every artist’s professional development beyond the classroom and practice room but is particularly critical for international student artists who hope to obtain O-1 visas to perform in the US beyond graduation. As we all know too well, in reviewing O-1 petitions USCIS examiners routinely dismiss degrees, training, repertoire, and school-related performances as part of student’s “training” and not the “professional” credits, recognition, and distinction required to qualify for an O-1 visa. As such, CPT and OPT have often been the only way for international student artist to get such “professional” credits in the US without having to leave the US each time they have an engagement and—particularly since 2025—risk being refused re-entry.
As artists and students cannot perform in the US without work authorization—even if they do not get paid or no tickets are sold, the implications will fall not only upon international students themselves, but on the venues and presenters who may no longer be able to engage international artists if they are on student visas. If an international student were to win a competition or audition that includes a tour of US engagements and performances, they may not be allowed perform them without changing from an F-1 to an O-1—which they may not be able to do if they have been precluded from any off-campus engagements up to that point. Agents and managers may no longer be able to swoop in and swoop up prize winners or top new talent if they cannot tour them in the US whilst on student visas—and while such student artists could perform outside the US, if they spend too much time performing outside of the US they may be deemed to have abandoned their student visas without the credits needed to qualify for an O-1 visa.
Whilst OPT rules and eligibility, for now, remain unchanged, should DHS’s other rules and restrictions that are currently on hold go into effect, OPT will be subject to additional restrictions, new procedures, and new expenses. For example, should a student want to remain in the US after graduation and avail themselves of Optional Practical Training (OPT), they will not only need to file an application for an OPT employment authorization card, but incur additional fees to file an EOS request so they can remain in the US beyond their arbitrary F-1 validity period.
In the meantime, like a conniving haemorrhoid, Trump has gleefully threatened to impose an additional $100,000 OPT fee to discourage international students from lingering and working in the US (in whatever incarnation remains) after graduating. However, that has not yet been imposed and, like everything else, would likely be embroiled in litigation before it could take effect.
As Artistsfromabroad.org reports from the battlements: “Many US arts organizations have successfully used CPT to employ F-1 students in the past and this immediate policy change will certainly impact future plans.” To be sure, for now future planning will require some proficiency in either Ouiji boards or tarot cards.
3. New Premium Processing Refunds, Recesses, and Retrogressions
Not surprisingly, as the US continues to surf down the slipstream of stupidity into the cologuard box of chaos, there has been a dramatic reduction in visa petitions being filed. As such, having less to do, one would think USCIS would be able to process what they do receive more quickly. Think again. That’s now how we roll in Neo-America.
According to the American Immigration Council, the backlog of immigration petitions festering at USCIS has “worsened in the second quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2026, even as USCIS received dramatically fewer filings than it did one year earlier. A trend that reflects a series of policy and process changes by the Trump administration intended on restricting immigration into the United States.”
For the arts world, whilst approval rates for O and P petitions have remained mostly stable, pending petitions have increased by 90%, from 63,000 in the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2025 to 120,000 in the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2026. Processing times have followed suit, jumping from 12.5 months in the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2025 to over 24 months by the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2026. Because standard processing is taking 12 months or longer, and O and P petitions cannot be filed more than a year in advance, premium processing has become mandatory for all O and P petitions—except for those whose rosy optimism still wagers on standard processing coming through. (Bless their hearts!) As a result, USICS finds itself in a conundrum of its own making: it's legally required to adjudicate premium processed petitions within 15 business days and it's increasingly missing that deadline. Its fix has been to refund the premium fee and bump the petition back to the standard processing queue.
USCIS regulations provide that if USCIS cannot process a case within the premium processing window, USCIS must refund the premium processing fee and adjudicate the petition within the “applicable processing timeframe.” This does not necessarily mean premium processing or with any degree of priority. It merely means “we have given you back your fee and all bets are off. We’ll get to it when we get to it.” USCIS has been unclear and, characteristically, unhelpful in providing any further guidance. As a result, some petitioners, after receiving a refund, are simply using that money to re-pay the premium processing fee in the hopes of returning the petition to premium processing.
Whilst that initially might seem tantalizingly logical, recent reports indicate that USCIS is rejecting attempts to repay for premium processing for a pending petition for which the previously paid premium processing fee has been refunded. That means that if USCIS has breached the premium processing window and refunded the money, and the petitioner attempts to pay for premium processing again for the same pending petition, USCIS will not accept it. Worse, it could cause even further delays.
If a petitioner has a petition filed with premium processing which has been pending beyond the premium processing period (and where no RFE has been issued) or for which the premium processing fee has been refunded, they have but three (3) options:
1) Reach out to USCIS for a case status. However, USCIS itself confirms that it is taking 30-45 days to respond to inquiries—even those sent through Congressional offices. We ourselves have USCIS yet to respond to inquiries we submitted in July with regard to case statuses.
2) Withdraw the pending petition and refile the entire petition with premium processing, including new filing fees.
3) Pour a drink and wait it out.
4. USCIS Holds Off on Holds—For Now
Among the many DHS policies that have been imposed, struck down, re-imposed, and then put on hold over the last 9 months is USCIS’s policy of putting visa petitions filed on behalf of artists from certain countries or with certain ethnic backgrounds on indefinite holds.
In January 2026, DHS issued a rule under which citizens of 75 countries were banned from receiving immigrant visas (“green cards”) but not banned from receiving non-immigrant employment-based visas such as O and P visas for artists. In addition, the rule barred citizens from a list 20 additional countries from student, business and visitor visas (but not artist visas), and barred citizens from a list of 20 other countries from ALL travel to the US under any circumstances.
According to the January 2026 rule, anyone holding dual citizenship with a country not on any list was not subject to any of these bans and restrictions. However, on March 30, 2026, DHS crept out of crypt and crapped out a new rule whereby anyone born in any of these countries, regardless of whether they had long since left that country and/or obtained citizenship in another country would not necessarily be subject to a n outright ban but, rather. be subject to “Enhanced Screening and Vetting Practices” which could include indefinite holds for extensive security checks, increased social media and financial vetting, additional consulate interviews, prostate probes, and colonoscopy screenings.
Subsequently, this resulted in holds or delays in petition processing and visa stamp applications with regard to any artists affiliated with these countries in any manner or degree. No RFEs were issued. No notices were given. Visa petitions just “disappeared”—even if they were filed with premium processing. On one occasion, this included a petition for an artist who merely had the misfortune of being born in one of the banned countries when his parents were merely passing through. On other occasions, petitions for entire groups and ensembles were put on hold by USCIS if even a single member of the group was born in a country considered to be “high risk
Between June and September 2026, multiple courts at multiple levels in multiple states ruled the DHS policy to be arbitrary and capricious and ordered USCIS to drop the holds and adjudicate the held petitions—allowing DHS to place administrative holds only for cases where there were legitimate concerns and not just because of a person’s arbitrary birthplace. The government, of course, has appealed all these rulings and, as with the new rules pertaining to student visas, we remain in limbo. At any time, there may be court rulings reinstating DHS hold policy. More likely, the government will just issue a new policy worded slightly differently and use that to start putting petitions back on hold again.
In the meantime, and for the moment, the petitions previously held are slowly being reviewed and arbitrary holds are not being placed on newly filed petitions. Indeed, it was much to our own shock and awe that we were able to get visas approved for members of the Simon Bolivar Orchestra from Venezuela to enter in time for them to perform as part of FIFA Half-time Show when they otherwise would have fallen into oblivion. (And no, we did not get free tickets!)
5. Delayed Receipt Notices
Assuming your petition make it pass Minas Morgul, through the pass of Cirith Ungol, and into Mordor, there continue to be reports of delays in receiving receipt notices. USCIS appears to be waiting for credit card payments and wire transfers to clear before issuing receipt notices. As a result, many petitioners are reporting significant delays in receiving petition receipt notices after petitions are filed. Even with premium processing where USCIS typically will email the receipt notice within 48 hours of receiving the petition, some emails are not arriving until 7 – 10 days later. For reasons known only to St. Agonetta, Our Lady of the Worthless Miracle, there are also incidents of USCIS not sending a receipt by email at all and only mailing them. Fortunately, the late receipt notices are arriving with receipt dates retroactive to the date USCIS physically received the petition. Thanks, Agonetta! However, this causes a delay in being able to proceed with the DS-160 visa stamp application process whilst a petition is pending.
6. Artist Visa denials and refusals remain low, but ESTA remains a perilous path
Petition denials and visa refusals remain low, but ESTA remains a perilous path
On the whole, artists continue to experience relatively few petition denials or issues entering the US. However, ESTA remains a considerable risk to artists and others seeking to avoid the artist visa process—as a reality TV star and “influencer” discovered to her peril.
Though everyone keeps asking us in the hopes the answer will change or they will find the lost elusive dispensation, the rule remains the same: artists cannot perform in the US without an artist visa (usually an O or P) regardless of whether or not they are paid, whether or not tickets are sold, whether they are only paid expenses, whether they cover their own expenses, whether or not they receive honorariums, whether they are performing for other students, whether they are performing at schools, whether they are students themselves, or whether the stage designer or director just plans to sit in the audience and takes notes. Simply put, standing on US soil and doing anything that benefits anyone is strongly discouraged.
Artists, agents, managers, and others can continue to use ESTA to enter the US for auditions and competitions, to meet with colleagues, for business or production meetings, and to attend performances. However, reports continue of artists and others having ESTA applications denied if they have travelled to, looked at, or have had any affiliation with any of the countries on the DHS January 2026 banned country list. The best advice will always be for artists and their entourages to continue to err on the side of obtaining O or P visas.
7. New I-129 Form
Lastly, USCIS has released yet another version of the Form I-129 (edition date: 09/09/26) which must be used for all petitions filed after November 9, 2026. None tof he changes pertain to anything relevant to O and P visa petitions, but it’s a reminder to always download a fresh form from the USCIS website whenever preparing a new visa petition. Further details as well as sample forms can be found on artistsfromabroad.org.
Deep Thoughts…
“Democracy is the tyranny of the uninformed.”
— Count Dracula
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.