The Department of Homeland Security has attempted to walk back some of the most alarming implications of a USCIS policy memorandum issued on May 21, 2026 — but for hundreds of thousands of green card applicants and their employers, the confusion is far from over.
What the Memo Says
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 reaffirming that adjustment of status (Form I-485) is a discretionary immigration benefit — not an entitlement — and has historically been treated as an extraordinary form of relief allowing eligible individuals to apply for permanent residence from within the United States instead of through the normal immigrant visa process at a U.S. consulate abroad.
The memo, accompanied by a USCIS news release the following day, reframes the agency's general approach to adjustment of status under Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). While the memo does not change the statute or regulations, it directs officers to treat adjustment as an "extraordinary" and disfavored form of relief — and signals that USCIS intends to apply the discretionary component of Section 245 with materially heightened scrutiny.
The accompanying press release went substantially further than the memo's operative text.
USCIS declared it was "returning to the original intent of the law," and Spokesman Zach Kahler stated: "From now on, an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances."
However, multiple immigration law firms have noted a critical discrepancy.
The phrase "only in extraordinary circumstances" that appeared in the USCIS press release does not appear anywhere in the body of the memo itself.
DHS Walks It Back — Partially
In the days following the memo's release, DHS was compelled to soften its public messaging.
USCIS was forced to clarify that H-1B holders would not be required to leave the country when applying for permanent residency, saying those who provided an "economic benefit" to the U.S. would likely be able to continue on the existing path.
The New York Times reported additional clarification from DHS indicating that the memo is intended primarily to remind officers of existing policy, rather than introduce new eligibility restrictions. According to the DHS spokesperson, the agency's focus is on "people who overstay visas or come from countries whose citizens are heavy users of public assistance."
While the reported DHS reversal and clarification are encouraging, it remains unclear how USCIS will apply the guidance in the memo. Adjustment of status remains a discretionary benefit, and USCIS officers will continue to review each case on an individual basis.
Confusion on the Ground
Despite the clarifications, inconsistency reigns at USCIS field offices.
Immigration attorney Taub reported hearing "conflicting reports about USCIS's application of the memo," noting that some colleagues reported officers asking applicants why they didn't return home to apply for their green card, while "other colleagues report that USCIS isn't asking any new questions at interviews." Meanwhile, he had "an employment-based adjustment of status application approved for a physician client on Monday with no mention of the memo."
The most likely near-term consequence is an uptick in Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) as officers document their discretionary analysis more thoroughly, which could slow processing timelines and require more detailed responses to agency inquiries.
An example of an RFE has been circulating on AILA practitioner listservs in the days immediately following PM-602-0199. The first request — for evidence of positive discretionary factors — is the kind of thing the memo invites. The second request — for public-charge documentation that the memo does not mention — is not. Both are now being asked for in the same RFE.
Industry Pushback
The American Immigration Lawyers Association has been among the sharpest critics.
AILA President Jeff Joseph told the Washington Post: "We're already seeing it filter down to the field office... This is another method of putting cogs in the wheel to try and shut down legal immigration."
The American Immigration Council noted that the May 21 memo "sets a significantly higher bar for approving adjustment of status applications filed from within the United States than has ever been used before," though it does not explicitly instruct USCIS to deny specific categories or types of adjustment of status applications.
Former AILA President Charles Kuck put it bluntly in an op-ed:
"This administration cannot pass an immigration law to its liking. What it can do is make existing law so difficult to access that it ceases to function in practice. That is what this memo attempts."
Who Is Most at Risk
The memo's impact is not uniform across applicant categories.
H-1B and L-1 status are the only two nonimmigrant categories that explicitly allow for dual intent. The memorandum acknowledges that AOS is "not inconsistent with simultaneously maintaining nonimmigrant status in a category with dual intent." However, the caveat that a dual intent status is "not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion" introduces new risk even for this traditionally protected population.
The highest-risk group under the memo's framework consists of single-intent visa holders — F-1 students, B-1/B-2 tourists, and others who entered on visas that were never designed to serve as a pathway to permanent residence. For these individuals, the memo's logic applies most directly: their very presence in the U.S. while pursuing a green card can now be framed as conduct inconsistent with the purpose of their admission.
Those who are relatives of U.S. citizens but have lived in the United States without legal status face a particularly precarious situation. Under current law, once they leave the country, they trigger bars that prohibit them from getting legal immigration status for several years. Additionally, the State Department has implemented an indefinite pause on consular visa processing of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries — making adjustment of status the only viable option for them.
Legal Challenges Ahead
The legal community is already mobilizing.
At least one firm has announced it believes the policy is unlawful and is preparing to file a class action lawsuit challenging it in federal court.
Attorneys anticipate that a coalition of business immigration advocacy groups, universities, and individual plaintiffs will file lawsuits in the coming weeks. If a federal judge issues a nationwide preliminary injunction, the implementation of PM-602-0199 would be frozen while the lawsuit works through the court system. However, the memorandum remains active until a court rules otherwise.
The memo is likely to face legal challenges given that there is substantial disagreement with USCIS' assertion that this policy is consistent with the law as enacted by Congress. The agency has also effectively changed substantive policy without providing advance notice and an opportunity to comment through rulemaking.
Practical Implications
The memorandum is effective immediately and applies to all pending and future AOS applications. While styled as a reminder of longstanding policy, it carries significant practical consequences for employers with foreign national workforces.
DHS data shows that more than 820,000 people received green cards through adjustment of status in 2024 alone. Over the past two decades, the figure has consistently exceeded 500,000 annually, except during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The new policy will likely result in many applicants changing course from adjustment of status to consular processing, which will result in backlogs in immigrant visa processing at consular posts — already understaffed after the State Department laid off more than 1,300 employees in 2025. The onslaught of a voluminous new caseload is likely to exponentially increase delays, potentially leading to years-long backlogs for immigrant visas.
What Applicants Should Do Now
Immigration attorneys across the country are offering consistent guidance: do not panic, but do not be complacent either.
If you have already filed an adjustment of status application, there is no reason to withdraw a pending application based on this memo alone.
The strongest possible filing matters more now than it did six months ago. That means building the discretionary record into the initial submission, addressing any negative factors directly with evidence and explanation, and not leaving the officer to fill in the blanks unfavorably.
If you have accrued any unlawful presence in the United States, leaving the country to pursue consular processing could trigger a 3-year or 10-year bar on reentry. Consular processing is not a safe default for everyone. Before considering this option, speak with a qualified immigration attorney who can evaluate your specific situation.
---
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about how PM-602-0199 may affect your case, consult with a qualified immigration attorney.