If you or a family member are applying for a green card from inside the United States, a new government policy may make that process significantly harder — even if you qualify under every rule on the books. On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, recharacterizing adjustment of status as an ‘extraordinary act of administrative grace’ not intended to replace the normal consular visa process. As an immigration attorney and Board Certified Specialist in Immigration Law, I believe this policy is legally flawed, misreads the law, and will cause real harm to thousands of deserving applicants. Here is what you need to know.
What Is Adjustment of Status?
Adjustment of status is the legal process that allows certain immigrants already living in the United States to apply for a green card without having to leave the country and attend an interview at a U.S. consulate abroad. Congress created this pathway in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as a co-equal alternative to consular processing — not as a special favor or an exceptional workaround. For millions of people — spouses of U.S. citizens, employment-based immigrants, and others — it has been the standard, lawful route to permanent residence for over seventy years.
What Does the New USCIS Policy Say?
PM-602-0199 instructs USCIS officers to treat the very act of applying for adjustment of status — rather than departing the U.S. for a consular interview — as an adverse factor in their discretionary review. Specifically, the policy directs officers to consider an applicant’s ‘failure to depart as expected’ and their ‘attempt to avoid the ordinary consular immigrant visa process’ as marks against them. It further instructs that having a clean record — no criminal history, no immigration violations — is not enough by
itself to earn approval. Applicants must now show ‘unusual or even outstanding equities’ to overcome this baseline presumption against them.
In plain terms: under this policy, simply choosing to apply for your green card inside the United States — a right Congress gave you — can be used as a reason to deny you.
The core doctrinal flaw in PM-602-0199 is a structural one: USCIS is using the language of “discretion” to smuggle in what is operationally a categorical rule. By declaring that entry as a nonimmigrant or parolee is a “highly relevant” adverse factor requiring “unusual or outstanding equities” to overcome — and that the absence of adverse factors is insufficient on its own — the Memorandum effectively creates a new eligibility hurdle that Congress never enacted. The statute’s § 245(c) exhaustive list of bars makes this particularly powerful: Congress knew exactly how to exclude categories, and parolees and nonimmigrants are not on that list.
Why This Policy Is Legally Wrong
This policy gets the law backwards, and there are at least four independent reasons why it should not survive legal challenge:
- It contradicts the statute. Congress created adjustment of status in INA § 245 as a lawful alternative to consular processing — not as a disfavored exception. Congress also spelled out exactly which categories of people cannot use adjustment of status in § 245(c). Nonimmigrant visa holders and parolees are not on that list. USCIS cannot add new barriers that Congress chose not to create.
- It bypassed required legal procedures. A policy that changes substantive legal standards must go through a public notice-and-comment process under the Administrative Procedure Act. USCIS skipped that process entirely, issuing this sweeping change as an internal memorandum with no public input.
- It misuses the cases it cites. The policy leans heavily on court decisions that describe adjustment of status as ‘discretionary.’ That is true — but those cases say discretion must be exercised case by case, based on the individual’s specific circumstances. None of them authorize a blanket policy that presumes entire categories of applicants are undeserving before their cases are even reviewed.
- Courts no longer defer to USCIS on legal interpretation. In 2024, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Courts must now independently interpret immigration statutes rather than deferring to the agency’s preferred reading. On that independent review, this policy fails.
What This Means for Your Case
If you have a pending adjustment of status application — particularly if you entered the United States on a nonimmigrant visa (such as an H-1B, F-1, or tourist visa) or were paroled in — this policy could affect how your case is decided. Officers may now scrutinize your decision to apply for a green card inside the U.S. as an adverse factor, even if you have done everything right. Cases that previously would have been straightforward approvals may face requests for additional evidence or outright denial.
That said, this policy is legally vulnerable and already being challenged. A denial based solely or primarily on this memorandum’s framework — without genuine, individualized review of your specific circumstances — is itself grounds for appeal and federal court review. Courts retain jurisdiction to review whether USCIS applied a lawful legal standard, even where they lack jurisdiction to second-guess individual discretionary judgments.
What You Should Do Now
If you have a pending or upcoming adjustment of status application, now is the time to act proactively. Build the strongest possible record of your positive equities: length of residence, family ties to U.S. citizens or permanent residents, employment history, community involvement, and any hardship that would result from requiring you to pursue consular processing abroad. Document everything. An application that tells a compelling, well-documented individual story is far more resilient against a policy designed to deny by category.
If you receive a denial or a request for evidence citing this policy, do not give up. Contact an experienced immigration attorney immediately. The legal landscape around PM-602-0199 is evolving quickly, and the arguments against it are substantial.