After a week of confusion, fear, and frantic calls to immigration attorneys, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a significant clarification to one of the most disruptive immigration policy announcements in recent memory — telling the public that most green card applicants will not be forced to leave the United States.
The Initial Bombshell
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.
The following day, the agency's press release dramatically escalated the rhetoric.
USCIS Spokesman Zach Kahler 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."
Headlines erupted. Phones at immigration law firms lit up.
The memo sparked widespread concern, particularly among holders of F-1 student and tourist visas. H-1B visa holders, of whom Indians account for nearly 70%, were also left worried.
The Walkback
DHS then said most immigrants seeking permanent residency in the U.S. can stay in the United States, clarifying the USCIS announcement issued the prior week.
DHS said the policy is not a blanket change and that individual immigration officers will decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether applicants must leave the U.S. to obtain a green card.
A DHS spokesperson told The New York Times:
"This was just a reminder to officers of their discretionary authority, which has always existed on a case-by-case basis."
A senior White House official described the memo as a "housekeeping" measure, not a new immigration strategy.
Critically, officials also sought to reassure the business community.
Within 24 hours of the initial announcement, USCIS told the outlet Semafor that "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."
DHS said the policy would not stop any immigrant from obtaining a green card if they legitimately and properly qualify for one, adding that it would have "no noticeable impact" on highly qualified and skilled applicants from getting permanent residency, as they benefit the national interest.
The Memo vs. The Press Release
Immigration attorneys quickly identified a critical gap between what the memo actually says and how it was publicly announced.
The phrase "only in extraordinary circumstances" that appeared in the USCIS press release does not appear anywhere in the body of the memo itself.
Nowhere does PM-602-0199 require consular processing, bar adjustment of status, or limit approvals to "extraordinary circumstances" as a categorical rule. What it directs is case-by-case discretionary weighing.
The memorandum does not change the regulatory text governing AOS, but it substantively changes the manner in which USCIS officers are directed to exercise discretion.
Importantly, the memorandum does not create new eligibility requirements or prohibit adjustment of status filings.
However, the practical implications are real.
USCIS clarified that maintaining lawful status in a dual-intent nonimmigrant category (such as H-1B or L-1) is not, by itself, enough to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. Officers still may deny AOS even for applicants in valid status.
Who Is Most at Risk?
The memo's impact will not fall equally across all green card applicants.
The highest-risk group 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, 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 USCIS memo suggests the new policy may be less applicable to dual-intent nonimmigrant categories (e.g., H-1B, L-1 and their H-4 and L-2 dependents), where applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with maintaining status as a temporary visa holder.
Applicants with prior immigration violations face the greatest scrutiny — including visa overstays, unauthorized employment, and other status violations. Applicants who entered on single-intent visas like B-1/B-2 tourist visas or F-1 student visas may also face additional questions about their intent.
On-the-Ground Impact Already Visible
Despite the walkback, the policy is already reshaping how USCIS officers conduct interviews.
AILA and multiple immigration practitioners have reported that officers are already issuing RFEs and asking interview questions about why applicants chose Adjustment of Status instead of applying for an immigrant visa abroad.
Immigration attorney Elissa Taub noted: "I'm hearing conflicting reports about USCIS's application of the memo. From some colleagues, I've heard that during interviews over the past day, USCIS officers have asked the applicant questions about why they didn't return home to apply for their green card. Other colleagues report that USCIS isn't asking any new questions." She added that she had an employment-based adjustment of status application approved for a physician client with no mention of the memo.
In one reported case, a person applying for a green card through marriage to a U.S. citizen was asked why they chose to apply for adjustment of status in the United States instead of returning to their home country.
One important point from immigration attorneys: the absence of negative factors is no longer enough on its own. USCIS has made clear that applicants must affirmatively demonstrate positive equities.
Legal Challenges Expected
A collective consensus is rapidly forming among immigration advocates, top-tier law firms, and corporate stakeholders: PM-602-0199 is on shaky legal ground and is highly likely to be challenged — and potentially blocked — in federal court.
Legal challenges are anticipated on multiple grounds including statutory authority, congressional intent, APA procedural requirements, and retroactive application.
Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, acknowledged the challenge of framing litigation, telling 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."
Business groups have also raised concerns. Neil Bradley, executive vice president and chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the change could be "incredibly disruptive for employers," and called for a "more robust" legal immigration system.
What Applicants Should Do Now
For anyone with a pending or planned I-485 application, immigration attorneys are offering clear guidance:
- Do not panic, but do not be complacent.
- Build a strong discretionary record.
- Do not rush filings.
- Consider dual-intent strategy.
- Retain experienced counsel.
The Bottom Line
The DHS walkback offers some reassurance, but the underlying memo remains active and in effect.
This guidance is expected to cause widespread confusion and a chilling effect among potential applicants.
According to government data, around 1.4 million green cards were issued in 2024, including roughly 820,000 through adjustment of status applications
— meaning this policy touches the majority of the green card pipeline.
Questions remain because the government has not clearly defined the circumstances under which applicants may be required to leave the United States during the green card process.
Until courts weigh in or USCIS issues more specific category-level guidance, applicants are left navigating heightened uncertainty in what was, for decades, a well-established pathway to permanent residency.
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 an experienced immigration attorney.