Two weeks after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services shook the immigration world with a policy memo recharacterizing the green card process for applicants already living in the United States, confusion continues to mount — even as the Department of Homeland Security has attempted to soften the blow.
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 agency's accompanying press release went further than the memo itself.
USCIS declared: "We're returning to the original intent of the law to ensure aliens navigate our nation's immigration system properly. 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."
That language immediately sent shockwaves through the immigration community.
In 2024, the United States issued nearly 1.4 million green cards
, and
roughly 820,000 were approved through adjustment of status inside the country.
The Gap Between the Press Release and the Memo
Immigration attorneys quickly identified a critical disconnect between USCIS's public messaging and the actual policy document.
The phrase "only in extraordinary circumstances" that appeared in the USCIS press release does not appear anywhere in the body of the memo itself. That language came from a political statement by an agency official, not from the policy guidance that will govern actual adjudications.
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 and may deny cases even where the applicant otherwise meets the technical eligibility requirements.
DHS Walks It Back — But the Memo Stands
On May 29, 2026 — one week after the press release — DHS itself confirmed exactly this gap. In a clarification reported by The New York Times, a DHS spokesperson stated that PM-602-0199 was "just a reminder to officers of their discretionary authority, which has always existed on a case-by-case basis," and that the new framework is "not a blanket change." A senior White House official, separately, told the NYT that the guidance was "a housekeeping measure rather than a major policy shift."
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."
Yet immigration practitioners note that the walkback, however welcome, has not altered the operative document.
Discretion existed in theory but rarely bit. This memo is an instruction to make discretion bite — to treat the discretionary inquiry as a live, dispositive question rather than a formality.
Who Is Most at Risk?
The memo's impact varies significantly depending on an applicant's visa category and immigration history.
The highest-risk group under its 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.
The memo indicates that H-1B, L-1, and other dual-intent classifications may be comparatively less affected because immigrant intent remains permissible in those categories, although dual-intent classification alone will not guarantee a favorable exercise of discretion.
For spouses of U.S. citizens — historically the group that has received the most favorable exercise of USCIS discretion — attorneys expect that dynamic to continue, particularly for applicants with no arrest record and no prior immigration violations who can demonstrate positive factors for remaining in the U.S.
On-the-Ground Effects Already Emerging
The practical consequences are already being felt.
Immigration attorneys are already reporting that USCIS officers are issuing Requests for Evidence and asking interview questions about why applicants chose to apply for a green card in the U.S. rather than through a consulate abroad.
A sample Request for Evidence 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.
AILA President Jeff Joseph told the Washington Post that
the effects are already filtering "down to the field office" and characterized the policy as "another method of putting cogs in the wheel to try and shut down legal immigration."
Former AILA President Charles Kuck was equally direct, writing in an op-ed that
"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."
Pending Cases and Retroactivity Concerns
One of the most alarming aspects of the memo for applicants is its apparent retroactive reach.
Because the favorable exercise of discretion is assessed at the time of final adjudication, the heightened standard applies to every I-485 application that has not yet been approved, regardless of when it was filed. This is consistent with the general principle in the USCIS Policy Manual. Notably, the memo does not contain a prospective-only carve-out for already-pending cases.
The agency still has not clarified through formal policy or guidance whether this recent memo is supposed to apply to adjustment of status applications that have already been filed. Nevertheless, there are recent reports from attorneys representing noncitizens with pending adjustment applications that their clients are being asked to demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" per the memo.
Legal Challenges Anticipated
PM-602-0199 was issued as a policy memo, without notice-and-comment rulemaking. Challengers are expected to argue that it functions as a substantive rule and was therefore required to go through formal APA rulemaking before taking effect.
Benjamin Johnson, executive director of AILA, noted that "It does make it more difficult to figure out what you're suing for when you don't know what this thing really is."
Some immigration firms expect that litigation will ensue because adjustment of status is specifically included in the Immigration and Nationality Act as an alternative to consular processing at a consulate or embassy abroad.
What Applicants Should Do Now
Immigration attorneys are coalescing around consistent advice for those with pending or planned I-485 applications:
- Do not withdraw pending applications.
- Prepare for increased scrutiny.
- Build a strong record of positive factors.
- Maintain lawful status.
- Consult an immigration attorney before making any decisions about travel, filing strategy, or withdrawal.
Looking Ahead
There may be significant uncertainty about the memo for the foreseeable future. The memo states that USCIS will "carefully" review the various options noncitizens have to adjust their status and that it "may" provide specific guidance as to whether those applications "may or may not warrant [an] act of grace and exception to the regular consular process."
What remains clear is that the landscape for adjustment of status has materially shifted.
USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 does not abolish adjustment of status, but it changes how USCIS officers are instructed to exercise discretion in Form I-485 cases. Applicants should now expect adjustment filings to be reviewed less like routine form packages and more like discretionary legal submissions.
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 specific immigration case, consult with a qualified immigration attorney.