The Department of Homeland Security has moved to contain a firestorm of confusion ignited by its own agency, clarifying that a controversial USCIS policy memorandum does not impose a blanket requirement for green card applicants to leave the United States. But immigration attorneys and advocacy groups say the damage is already being done — and that the real impact may be felt not in the headline, but in the interview room.
The Original Announcement
On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, titled "Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process."
The accompanying press release declared that "aliens seeking adjustment of status must do so through consular processing via the Department of State outside of the country," with USCIS Spokesman Zach Kahler stating: "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."
The announcement sent shockwaves through the immigration community.
For more than 50 years, foreign nationals with legal status — including spouses of U.S. citizens, visa holders, refugees, and asylum-seekers — have been able to apply for and complete the green card process from within the United States.
Roughly half of all new green cards each year are issued through adjustment of status — 52% in FY 2023.
The Walkback
Following the memo's release on May 22, a sequence of conflicting agency statements created significant confusion. That morning, a USCIS spokesperson announced the sweeping "return home" directive; by the afternoon, following immediate pushback from the business and legal communities, the agency clarified via email that the policy was still being operationalized.
DHS clarified that most green card applicants will not be required to leave the United States, and that decisions will remain discretionary, assessed case by case by immigration officers. "This was just a reminder to officers of their discretionary authority, which has always existed on a case-by-case basis," a DHS spokesperson said in a statement reported by The New York Times.
Critically,
a USCIS spokesperson told Semafor: "While we work to operationalise this, people who present applications that provide an economic benefit or otherwise are in the national interest will likely be able to continue on their current path while others may be asked to apply abroad depending on individualised circumstances."
What the Memo Actually Does
PM-602-0199 reaffirms that adjustment of status (Form I-485) is a discretionary immigration benefit — not an entitlement. Importantly, the memorandum does not create new eligibility requirements or prohibit adjustment of status filings. Rather, it reiterates longstanding legal principles that USCIS officers retain broad discretion in adjudicating adjustment applications.
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.
Employment-based applicants may still pursue adjustment of status; however, the memorandum clarifies that maintaining lawful status alone does not guarantee a favorable discretionary outcome.
Officers are now weighing the totality of circumstances, and the absence of adverse factors is no longer considered sufficient on its own.
Who Is Most — and Least — at Risk?
Dual-Intent Visa Holders (H-1B, L-1):
Individuals on H-1B and L-1 visas are structurally safer because immigration law explicitly permits them to have "dual intent." However, the memo notes that maintaining employment-based status is a positive factor but is not completely dispositive of approval.
Single-Intent Visa Holders (F-1, B-1/B-2):
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 never designed 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.
Family-Based Applicants:
Family-based applicants may face the greatest risk from increased discretionary review. Historically, many immigrants entered the United States lawfully, later married U.S. citizens, and successfully adjusted status despite having overstayed their visas. If USCIS increasingly directs these applicants to pursue processing abroad, some individuals could trigger three-year or ten-year unlawful presence bars upon departure.
Attorneys Report Confusion at Field Offices
The policy is not staying theoretical.
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."
As green card interviews resumed following the long weekend, immigration attorneys reported that their clients were facing new questions. "I'm hearing conflicting reports about USCIS's application of the memo," said attorney Elissa Taub, noting that some colleagues reported officers asking applicants why they did not return home to apply for their green card, while others reported no new questions at all. One employment-based adjustment application for a physician was approved Monday with no mention of the memo.
Even before the issuance of PM-602-0199, USCIS had already been issuing specialized Requests for Evidence (RFEs), forcing applicants to affirmatively prove why they deserve a favorable exercise of discretion to adjust status within the United States.
Legal Challenges Anticipated
Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told The New York Times: "It does make it more difficult to figure out what you're suing for when you don't know what this thing really is."
Immigration attorney Todd Pomerleau argued that the INA explicitly permits individuals who were legally inspected and admitted to adjust status from within the U.S., stating: "You can't, through a stroke of a pen, overturn a statute. I think it's illegal, and it's going to get shut down in court very quickly."
Former AILA President Charles Kuck offered a sharper assessment.
"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."
PM-602-0199 was issued as a policy memo without notice-and-comment rulemaking
, which could open the door to Administrative Procedure Act challenges.
Parallel litigation over USCIS's related country-specific discretion policies has already produced a partial preliminary injunction — an early signal that at least some of this year's discretion measures are vulnerable to legal challenge.
Practical Implications for Applicants
For anyone with a pending or planned I-485 application, immigration attorneys are issuing consistent guidance:
- Do not leave the United States without legal advice.
- Do not withdraw a pending I-485.
- Build a stronger discretionary record.
- Prepare for heightened interview scrutiny.
What Comes Next
DHS has not published formal guidance explaining how officers will exercise this new discretion. As a result, significant uncertainty remains.
The memo openly telegraphs that USCIS will examine specific "pathways" and "discrete populations" and may issue category-specific guidance — this is a framework memo, and the targeted follow-ons are coming.
How immigration officers exercise this discretion in actual cases will ultimately determine whether the policy becomes a meaningful change or simply a clarification of existing authority.
For the hundreds of thousands of applicants currently in the adjustment pipeline, the stakes could not be higher.
---
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have a pending adjustment of status case or are planning to file, consult with a qualified immigration attorney to evaluate how PM-602-0199 may affect your specific circumstances.