Skip to main content

US Business News

US Business News

US BUSINESS NEWS
US Business News

The New Asylum Rule: What HR Leaders and Employers Need to Know

US Business News Staff US Business News Staff on August 21, 2026

By: Matt Emma

A recent change to the asylum process is adding another layer of uncertainty for employers already trying to keep pace with a rapidly changing immigration environment.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has changed how certain affirmative asylum applications can move through the immigration system, allowing some cases to be referred directly to immigration court without first going through the traditional USCIS asylum interview. While the procedural change is aimed primarily at the asylum system and its significant backlog, immigration experts say employers should understand how developments like this can affect their workforce.

For human resources departments, however, the first lesson may be what not to do.

“One of the biggest misconceptions I hear from employers is that every immigration announcement requires immediate action,” said Flavia Santos Lloyd, founder and managing attorney of Santos Lloyd Law Firm. “In many cases, it doesn’t. The first question HR should ask is whether the development actually changes the employer’s legal obligations or an employee’s current authorization to work.”

That distinction is particularly important with the new asylum procedure.

What the Rule Means for Employers

The ability to refer certain asylum cases directly to immigration court changes where an individual’s immigration case may be heard, but it does not automatically determine whether that individual is authorized to work.

For employers, employment eligibility remains tied to the documentation an employee is legally permitted to present through the Form I-9 process.

“A referral to immigration court does not automatically mean an employee loses work authorization,” Lloyd said. “HR should continue following the normal Form I-9 process, rely on valid documentation and avoid making assumptions about an employee’s ability to work simply because the status or location of an immigration case has changed.”

That can be difficult in an environment where immigration developments frequently generate significant news coverage. Employees may see a headline about asylum, Temporary Protected Status, deportation proceedings or another immigration program and immediately worry that their employment could be affected.

HR departments may receive those questions just as quickly.

Flavia Santos Lloyd said employers should resist making employment decisions based on broad immigration developments without first determining whether those developments apply to a particular employee or change existing employment verification requirements.

Work Authorization Remains the Critical Question

Employees with pending asylum applications may obtain Employment Authorization Documents if they meet applicable eligibility requirements. Employers are responsible for verifying employment authorization according to federal requirements, but they generally are not responsible for evaluating the merits of an employee’s underlying immigration case.

That division is important.

“Employers should be focused on whether an employee has valid work authorization, not trying to determine whether that person is likely to win or lose an asylum case,” Lloyd said. “Those are very different questions.”

For HR teams, that means continuing to monitor employment authorization expiration dates when required and conducting reverification when federal law requires it.

It does not mean automatically reverifying an employee because an immigration category has appeared in the news.

“Employers can create problems when they start asking certain employees for additional documentation because they are nervous about something they read,” Lloyd said. “Consistency is one of the best compliance tools an HR department has.”

Federal anti-discrimination protections can come into play when employers request more or different documents than required or treat workers differently because of citizenship, immigration status or national origin.

The Danger of Managing Immigration Compliance by Headline

The asylum rule arrives during a particularly complicated period for employers.

Immigration policies are being changed through agency actions, challenged through litigation and, in some instances, modified following court decisions again. For businesses with foreign national employees or workers who hold temporary forms of employment authorization, keeping track of those developments can become increasingly difficult.

According to Lloyd, one of the most common questions employers ask following a major immigration development is simple: Do we need to do anything right now?

“In many cases, the answer is no,” she said. “A court ruling or policy announcement may be extremely important to the people directly affected, but that does not necessarily mean an employer has a new compliance obligation that day.”

Instead, HR leaders should verify developments through official government guidance and qualified immigration counsel before changing established procedures.

That is especially important when court cases are involved. A ruling may apply only to certain individuals, jurisdictions, or programs. An injunction may temporarily stop a policy from taking effect, while an appeal can change the situation again.

Reacting too quickly can create a different kind of legal risk.

“The biggest mistake is making decisions based on headlines instead of official guidance,” Lloyd said. “Immigration law can change quickly, but employers still have to follow the rules that are actually in effect.”

Supporting Employees Without Providing Legal Advice

Compliance is only one part of the challenge.

Immigration uncertainty can also become a workforce issue. Employees concerned about their ability to remain in the United States may experience significant anxiety even when their employment authorization has not changed.

Employers do not need to become immigration advisers, Lloyd said, but they can establish a clear process for employees seeking assistance.

“HR should never try to provide individualized immigration advice unless someone is qualified to do that,” she said. “What employers can do is make sure employees know where to bring questions and, when appropriate, direct them to experienced immigration counsel.”

Managers should also understand where their role ends. Rather than independently questioning employees about immigration status or documents, immigration-related employment questions should generally be routed through the organization’s designated HR or compliance professionals.

For larger employers, establishing those procedures before an issue arises can prevent inconsistent responses across departments or locations.

What HR Leaders Can Do Now

The new asylum procedure does not necessarily require employers to rewrite their policies, but Lloyd believes it provides a useful reason to review them.

HR departments can examine whether Form I-9 procedures are being applied consistently, whether employment authorization expiration dates are being tracked appropriately and whether staff members responsible for verification understand when reverification is required.

Organizations should also know who will handle more complicated immigration questions when they arise.

“Have the plan in place before you need it,” Lloyd said. “Know who within the organization is responsible for immigration compliance, know when outside counsel should be contacted, and make sure managers understand that they should not be making immigration decisions independently.”

Communication can be equally important. Employers may not be able to tell workers what will happen with a particular immigration program or court case, but they can explain company procedures and avoid allowing rumors to drive workplace anxiety.

Preparing for More Immigration Changes

For business leaders, the larger message extends well beyond the latest asylum rule.

Lloyd expects employers to continue facing changes involving employment authorization, humanitarian immigration programs, employment-based visas, processing times, and worksite enforcement over the coming months.

Each development may affect employers differently, making it increasingly important for businesses to have systems that can adapt without overreacting.

“I don’t think employers should expect immigration policy to become static anytime soon,” Lloyd said. “The organizations that are going to be in the strongest position are the ones that review their compliance practices regularly, communicate clearly and know where to turn when something changes.”

For HR leaders, that may ultimately be the most practical response to an immigration environment that can change faster than internal company policies.

Employers cannot predict every court ruling, agency announcement, or policy shift. They can, however, establish consistent employment verification procedures, train the people responsible for administering them, and create a reliable process for responding when immigration issues affect their workforce.

“Being proactive is far easier than trying to fix a problem after the fact,” Lloyd said. “Good immigration compliance isn’t about reacting to every headline. It’s about having sound practices in place so that when something does change, you know how to respond.”

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration laws, policies, and procedures are subject to change, and their application may vary depending on individual circumstances. Employers and individuals should consult qualified immigration or employment counsel regarding specific legal questions.

Intake and Follow-Up: Fix This Before You Buy Leads

US Business News Staff US Business News Staff on August 21, 2026

Intake and Follow-Up

Only 40 percent of law firms answer the phone when a prospective client calls. For most firms, the fastest growth available has nothing to do with buying more advertising.

The formula for new business slowdown is predictable. It usually revolves around increasing ad budgets, launching a new campaign, and finding lead sources. For most firms that is the wrong move. In Clio’s 2024 Legal Trends Report, researchers contacted law firms as prospective clients. Only 40 percent picked up the phone. Forty-eight percent were unreachable by phone entirely. Just 33 percent responded to an email. Those firms did not have a lead problem. Every one of those contacts had already found the firm, already decided to reach out, and already picked up the phone. The demand was there. The operation behind it was not.

LocaliQ’s benchmark data puts the median cost per lead in legal search advertising at $111.05. Generate 100 inquiries and you have spent about $11,100. Reach 40 percent of them and 60 never become a conversation. That is roughly $6,660 gone, in a single batch of 100.

The money was spent the moment the click happened. The only variable left is whether anyone picks up. This is why intake is usually a better investment than media. Media buys more inquiries at a fixed cost. Intake changes the percentage that become conversations, and that percentage applies to every dollar already spent.

Most firms treat intake as a staffing question. Hiring a reception and giving them calendar access is part of the solution, but a person without a dedicated system produces whatever they remember to do that day. Here is the test. If your best intake person quits Friday afternoon, does the process still run Monday morning? If the answer depends on how good their replacement turns out to be, you have a person, not a system.

The most expensive assumption in professional services is that a prospect who does not sign immediately is gone. But that’s wrong. They are usually comparing firms, gathering documents, waiting on a spouse, or putting off a decision they do not want to make. Most firms stop at one attempt. Clio found a majority did not respond to voicemails within 72 hours, which means the first attempt is often the only attempt, and frequently it is not made at all. That’s a problem.

Want to do a self check? Count these for one week and the constraint usually surfaces. Inquiries received, in one place. Contact rate, the percentage where someone spoke to a human. Median speed to first contact. Consultations scheduled. Consultation show rate. Prospects sitting in active follow-up right now.

Each is a percentage of the one above it. The largest drop between two consecutive numbers is your constraint, and it is rarely at the top of the funnel. What happens at and after the consultation matters too, but that belongs to the firm rather than to the intake operation, and mixing the two hides which one is failing.

Before you buy more leads, ask a different question. If twice as many prospective clients contacted the firm tomorrow, could the current operation handle them? If the answer is no, another campaign is not the solution.

Almost every firm we speak to is quietly embarrassed about some part of the front office. It usually means the business grew faster than the systems underneath it, which is what growth does to every firm that works.

If you need help navigating intake and follow-up, reach out to the experts at TenneX Legal. To learn more, visit www.tennexlegal.com.

TenneX Legal is not a law firm and does not provide legal services. Every function it performs runs at the direction and under the supervision of the client law firm.

Myths and Realities of Unsecured Business Loans in Washington State

US Business News Staff US Business News Staff on August 21, 2026

Washington State’s economy, anchored by Seattle’s technology and aerospace sectors alongside a genuinely diverse agricultural base east of the Cascades, has developed its own set of misconceptions about how unsecured financing actually works. Separating myth from reality matters before any business owner applies, since acting on an outdated assumption can lead a genuinely qualified business to avoid a useful financing option, or push an unprepared applicant toward assuming qualification is easier than it actually is.

Myth: Unsecured Financing Is Only for Desperate Businesses

This myth persists despite being considerably out of date and increasingly disconnected from how the market actually operates today. Unsecured financing has become a mainstream tool used by healthy, growing businesses across Washington, from Seattle tech companies bridging a funding gap between milestones to Eastern Washington agricultural businesses managing seasonal cash flow with genuinely strong underlying revenue. The reality is that many financially strong businesses choose unsecured financing specifically for its speed and accessibility, not because they lack access to better options through a traditional bank.

Myth: You Need Excellent Credit to Qualify

The reality is considerably more accessible than this myth suggests, and it’s one of the most persistent misconceptions holding back qualified Washington business owners from even applying. Many unsecured lenders weigh bank account revenue and consistency more heavily than credit score alone, meaning a business with genuinely strong, growing deposits can often qualify even with a credit score that would exclude it from traditional bank financing entirely, since the underlying evaluation model treats credit score as one input among several rather than a strict gate determining approval.

Myth: Seattle’s Tech Economy Doesn’t Need This Kind of Financing

In reality, Seattle’s technology sector generates plenty of demand for fast, accessible working capital, particularly among smaller companies and service providers supporting the broader tech ecosystem who don’t have access to venture funding or the kind of large cash reserves bigger tech companies typically maintain. A software consultancy bridging a gap between client engagements or a specialized contractor supporting a larger tech company both represent exactly the kind of business unsecured financing was built to serve, regardless of how prominently Seattle’s tech industry features in the state’s broader economic identity.

Myth: The Application Process Takes About as Long as a Bank Loan

This is perhaps the most persistent and inaccurate myth still circulating among Washington business owners who haven’t yet directly compared the two experiences. Where a Washington bank loan commonly takes four to eight weeks, an unsecured online application typically takes about two minutes to complete, with underwriting decisions often returning within minutes rather than weeks. The gap between these two timelines is not a marginal difference worth glossing over; it’s an entirely different order of magnitude that fundamentally changes what kind of financial emergency each option can realistically address.

Reality: Same Day Funding Has Become a Genuine Standard

This hybrid approach, where a platform funds directly but also maintains partner access for situations that call for a different fit, is exactly what companies like Fundivi have built their process around, aiming for same-day funding once an application clears underwriting. The practical benefit is that a business owner gets the speed of a direct lending relationship without losing the broader optionality a marketplace can offer, all within a single application. For a Washington business owner comparing options, expecting a same-day answer for qualifying applications submitted before the daily cutoff has become a reasonable, achievable standard rather than an exceptional feature only a handful of lenders happen to offer.

How to Research and Choose the Right Commercial Lending Company

Finding the right commercial lender is less about landing on the first search result and more about building a habit of comparison before urgency sets in. Business owners who take the time to look at multiple lenders, rather than defaulting to whichever company appears first, tend to end up with better rates, clearer terms, and fewer surprises once the paperwork is signed.

A good starting point is looking at how a lender is actually rated by other business owners rather than relying on its own marketing copy. Resources such as businessloansiq.com bring together comparisons of business loan companies in one place, which makes it easier to see how different lenders stack up on speed, transparency, and overall customer experience before ever submitting an application.

From there, it helps to look past the advertised rate and understand the full cost of capital, including any origination fees, prepayment terms, and how repayment actually gets structured against day-to-day cash flow.

Side-by-side comparisons are especially useful at this stage of the process. A site like comparebusinessloansonline.com lets a business owner line up business lenders against one another using the same criteria, so the comparison is grounded in real terms rather than a single company’s pitch.

Reputation and track record matter just as much as pricing, particularly for a business owner who may need to return to the same lender for future capital down the road.

Checking independent ratings, rather than only the testimonials posted on a lender’s own website, is one of the more reliable ways to spot a pattern of poor communication or hidden fees before it becomes your problem. Platforms including bestratedbusinessloans.com compile ratings across a range of business lenders, offering another useful reference point while narrowing down the list of who to actually call.

None of this needs to take more than an afternoon, and doing it before a cash flow gap actually arrives means a business owner is choosing from options they have already vetted, rather than scrambling to evaluate a lender for the first time under real pressure.

Reality: Eastern Washington’s Agricultural Economy Has Its Own Pattern

East of the Cascades, Washington’s agricultural economy, spanning fruit, wine, and wheat production, operates on a genuinely different financing rhythm than Seattle’s tech corridor, with capital needs concentrated around planting, harvest, and the sometimes unpredictable timing of weather-related disruptions that can shift an entire season’s cash flow projection with little advance warning. Unsecured financing structures that flex with actual revenue timing fit this pattern considerably better than a rigid, fixed payment schedule would, particularly for growers and packing operations managing the inherent unpredictability that comes with agricultural production.

The Bottom Line for Washington Business Owners

Separating myth from reality matters because these misconceptions can genuinely shape financing decisions in ways that don’t actually serve a business’s real interests. Taking the time to understand what’s genuinely true about unsecured financing, rather than relying on outdated assumptions passed along informally between business owners, leads to better, more confident financing decisions across Washington’s diverse and genuinely fast-moving economy.

Myth: Washington’s Aerospace Industry Only Works With Traditional Banks

This assumption doesn’t hold up once you look at how the aerospace supply chain actually operates in practice. The smaller suppliers and specialized manufacturers supporting Washington’s major aerospace companies often face genuinely predictable but recurring cash flow gaps tied to production schedules and customer payment terms, exactly the kind of need unsecured working capital financing addresses well. These suppliers increasingly use unsecured financing to bridge the gap between production costs and customer payment, rather than exclusively relying on traditional bank relationships that may not move quickly enough to match their actual production timeline.

Reality: Comparing Offers Protects Washington Business Owners

Whatever myths or misconceptions a Washington business owner might have started with, the most reliable path forward is the same regardless: request prequalification from more than one lender, convert every resulting offer into total dollars owed for an identical amount and timeline, and confirm the specific terms around collateral, personal guarantee, and credit bureau reporting before signing anything. This discipline applies equally to a Seattle tech company and an Eastern Washington fruit grower, since the underlying financial risks these questions address don’t change based on industry or region.

Spokane and Washington’s Often Overlooked Eastern Half

Spokane and the broader Inland Northwest region support a genuinely diverse small business economy spanning healthcare, manufacturing, and logistics, distinct from both Seattle’s tech corridor and the agricultural communities further east. Business owners in this region sometimes assume the fast, accessible financing options associated with Seattle’s tech economy aren’t as readily available to them, when in reality the same online, application-based lenders serve businesses across the entire state equally, regardless of which specific region a business calls home or how far it sits from Washington’s major coastal metro area.

Building Long-Term Financial Preparedness

Business owners in this category who take the time to understand their financing options well before an urgent need actually arises consistently navigate genuine emergencies with considerably less stress than those researching options for the first time under pressure. This preparation costs nothing beyond a few minutes spent completing a soft prequalification, a process that typically doesn’t affect your credit score and provides a clear, concrete picture of what your specific business actually qualifies for right now. Knowing this information in advance, rather than discovering it for the first time during a genuine crisis, removes much of the scramble and uncertainty that otherwise accompanies an urgent capital need, whether that need arrives as an equipment failure, an unexpected opportunity, or a seasonal cash flow gap that caught the business off guard. The businesses that handle financing decisions most successfully over time are consistently the ones that treat this kind of preparation as an ongoing practice rather than a one-time event tied to a single specific crisis.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly does unsecured mean in the context of a business loan?

Unsecured means the loan is not tied to a specific piece of property, equipment, or asset that the lender could seize if the loan goes unpaid. Approval is based primarily on the business’s revenue and banking history rather than a physical asset pledged as security. This differs meaningfully from a secured loan, where a lender evaluates and often appraises a specific asset before extending credit against it.

Will applying affect my personal credit score?

Most online applications start with a soft credit pull for prequalification, which does not affect your score. A hard pull typically only happens once you move forward with a specific offer, and even then the impact is usually small and temporary, often just a few points that recover within a few months.

Is a personal guarantee still required even without collateral?

It depends on the lender and the specific product. Some unsecured products still require a personal guarantee, meaning the business owner remains personally liable if the business cannot repay, while others limit liability to the business entity itself. This is worth confirming directly and reading in the actual agreement language before signing.

Can a business with seasonal revenue still qualify?

Yes, though lenders typically want to see that the seasonal pattern is consistent and predictable rather than erratic. Some repayment structures, particularly revenue-based ones, are specifically designed to flex with seasonal ups and downs rather than requiring a fixed payment year-round, which can make a meaningful difference for a business whose revenue genuinely varies month to month.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general informational and editorial purposes only. It does not provide financial, legal, tax, accounting, lending, regulatory, credit, or business advice, and it should not be relied upon as a substitute for guidance from a qualified professional. Loan approval, funding speed, available amounts, repayment terms, fees, collateral requirements, personal guarantee requirements, credit impact, underwriting criteria, and borrower outcomes can vary by lender, product, business profile, revenue, banking history, credit history, industry, location, timing, and applicable law. Same-day funding, unsecured financing, seasonal revenue qualification, or specific financing results are not guaranteed. Business owners should carefully review all financing documents, cost disclosures, repayment obligations, lender policies, and applicable requirements before applying for or accepting any funding product.

Scaling a Law Firm From Solo Practice to Real Firm

US Business News Staff US Business News Staff on August 21, 2026

Most successful firms start with an attorney doing nearly everything. Cases, prospect calls, email, billing review, staff, and marketing approvals. That functions at a small scale. This is more of a burden the moment a firm grows (that is the point, right?)

In theory, a firm can grow without becoming scalable. More advertising produces more inquiries. More cases produce more revenue. But if every increase in volume produces a proportional increase in complexity for the owner, the firm has grown and solved nothing. It seems almost counterproductive. Scale essentially means the system absorbs volume without producing equatable chaos. The distinction shows up in the owner’s calendar long before it shows up in the financials. Revenue can climb for two years while the owner’s week (and life) gets steadily worse.

Clio’s benchmark data puts the average law firm utilization rate at 38 percent. In an eight-hour day, the average lawyer captures about 3.0 billable hours. Five hours a day, per lawyer, go somewhere else. Obviously, some of that is unavoidable, and some is business development. But a large share is work that does not require a law license. Every hour recovered from it is an hour available for work only an attorney can do.

There is a 4 Stage System

Stage one. The attorney is the system. This can get chaotic, as everything from which prospect needs a callback to which consultation is tomorrow lives in the owner’s head. The biggest test is if the owner is unreachable for a week, what stops? Most owners list three or four things and realize they have described the entire business.

Stage two. The dreaded intake bottleneck. The volume begins to rise, and the attorney cannot physically respond to everyone. Calls have to be answered, consultations booked, and none of that is attorney judgment. The symptom is that more budget goes in and the consultation count does not move with it.

Stage three. The structuring of technology. Firms accumulate software one problem at a time until there is plenty of technology and no workflow. At that point, the problem is not acquiring software; it is connecting the operation.

Stage four. The need for operating capacity. Eventually, more technology is not enough and people become necessary. But hiring without defined systems produces more payroll and the same execution.

Most owners wait until growth creates pain. The focus should be on what breaks if the firm expands. Would calls go unanswered? Would scheduling fall apart? Would follow-up stop? Those answers are the build list.

Owners often put this off because admitting the firm has outgrown its systems feels like admitting to bad management. Actually, it’s the opposite. Every firm that grows hits this, and the ones that come through on the other end are the ones that come to terms with it earlier, rather than later.

TenneX Legal works with law firm owners on the operational move from solo practice to a scalable firm. More about the company’s services can be found on the TenneX Legal website.

TenneX Legal provides no legal services and is not a law firm. Everything it does for a firm is performed under that firm’s own direction and supervision.