USCIS’s New Adjustment of Status Policy: What Green Card Applicants Need to Know

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced a major change in how it intends to evaluate Adjustment of Status applications, commonly filed on Form I-485 by certain green card applicants who are already inside the United States. The policy, issued through USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 and publicly announced on May 22, 2026, reframes Adjustment of Status as an “extraordinary” discretionary benefit rather than the ordinary in-country path to permanent residence for many applicants. USCIS’s public announcement states that Adjustment of Status will be granted “only in extraordinary circumstances,” and that many applicants should instead pursue immigrant visa processing through the U.S. Department of State at a consulate abroad.

The update focuses on adjustment of status, which is the process that allows certain eligible immigrants to apply for a green card without leaving the United States for an immigrant visa interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. While adjustment of status has always involved some level of discretion, this new USCIS memo places renewed emphasis on the idea that adjustment is not an automatic benefit, even when someone meets the basic eligibility requirements.

USCIS is now reminding officers that adjustment of status is a matter of discretion, administrative grace, and extraordinary relief. In practical terms, this means that applicants may face more scrutiny, and USCIS officers may more carefully evaluate whether the applicant deserves to receive a green card from inside the United States instead of being required to complete the immigrant visa process abroad. In order to better understand what these means, we have broken everything down in detail below:

What Is Adjustment of Status?

Adjustment of status allows certain immigrants who are already physically present in the United States to apply for lawful permanent residence without leaving the country.

Common examples include:

— A spouse of a U.S. citizen who entered the United States lawfully and is now applying for a green card through marriage;

— A parent of a U.S. citizen child over 21 who entered lawfully and is applying from inside the United States;

— Certain employment-based applicants who are eligible to adjust status;

— Certain humanitarian applicants, depending on the specific category;

— Certain applicants who were paroled into the United States and later became eligible for a green card.

Adjustment of status is different from consular processing. In consular processing, the immigrant visa process is completed outside the United States through the Department of State at a U.S. embassy or consulate.

For many families, adjustment of status is preferred because it allows the applicant to remain in the United States with their family while the green card application is pending. However, USCIS is now making clear that the ability to apply from inside the United States should not be treated as guaranteed.

What Does the New USCIS Policy Say?

The new policy memo emphasizes that adjustment of status is discretionary. This means USCIS can deny an adjustment application even if the applicant meets the basic statutory requirements, if USCIS determines that the person does not merit a favorable exercise of discretion.

USCIS is instructing officers to look at the totality of the circumstances. This means officers should consider the full picture of the applicant’s case, including both positive and negative factors.

The memo specifically emphasizes that adjustment of status is not meant to replace the normal immigrant visa process abroad. USCIS is taking the position that, in many cases, people who entered the United States temporarily were expected to leave when their authorized stay ended. If they later seek a green card from inside the United States, USCIS may consider whether that conduct goes against the original purpose of their temporary admission or parole.

This does not mean adjustment of status is no longer available. It does not mean every case will be denied. But it does mean applicants should expect USCIS to look more closely at whether their case deserves approval as a matter of discretion.

Who May Be Most Affected?

This policy may affect many adjustment applicants, but some groups may face greater scrutiny than others.

1. People Who Entered on Visitor Visas

Applicants who entered the United States on a B-1/B-2 visitor visa and later applied for a green card may be closely reviewed, especially if USCIS believes the person intended to remain permanently in the United States when they entered as a visitor.

For example, if someone entered on a tourist visa and quickly married a U.S. citizen or filed for adjustment shortly after entry, USCIS may examine whether the person misrepresented their intent at the time of admission.

This does not automatically mean the case is improper. Many legitimate relationships and life changes happen after entry. However, the facts must be presented carefully, and the applicant should be prepared to explain their circumstances clearly and truthfully.

2. People Who Overstayed Their Authorized Stay

For immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, certain overstays may be forgiven for purposes of adjustment eligibility. However, this new policy reminds applicants that eligibility and discretion are not the same thing.

Even if an overstay does not legally prevent adjustment, USCIS may still consider the overstay as part of the discretionary analysis. This means the applicant may need to show strong positive factors to overcome any negative immigration history.

3. People Who Worked Without Authorization

Unauthorized employment is another factor that may receive greater attention.

In some family-based cases, especially immediate relative cases, unauthorized employment may not automatically bar adjustment. However, under this policy, USCIS may still consider unauthorized employment as a negative discretionary factor.

Applicants with unauthorized employment history should be prepared to address the issue honestly. They should also provide evidence of positive equities, such as family support, tax compliance where applicable, good moral character, hardship to U.S. citizen relatives, and community ties.

4. People Who Failed to Maintain Status

Applicants who entered on student visas, work visas, or other nonimmigrant classifications may be affected if they failed to maintain the terms of their status.

Examples may include:

— A student who stopped attending school;

— A temporary worker who stopped working for the petitioning employer;

— A visitor who remained beyond the authorized period;

— A parolee who remained after the purpose of parole ended;

— A person who engaged in conduct inconsistent with the visa or parole they received.

USCIS may now give more weight to these issues when deciding whether the applicant deserves adjustment of status.

5. People Who Were Paroled Into the United States

The memo also discusses parole. Parole allows certain individuals to enter the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. USCIS is emphasizing that parole is generally temporary and that a parolee is expected to depart once the purpose of parole has been served.

This may affect some parole-based adjustment cases, depending on the immigrant category, the applicant’s history, and whether consular processing is considered available.

However, the effect will vary by category. Some humanitarian programs and statutory adjustment categories have their own rules, and not every parole-based case should be treated the same way.

6. Applicants With Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Inconsistent Statements

The new policy specifically reminds officers to consider fraud, false testimony, and inconsistent information provided to USCIS or any government agency.

This is especially important because misrepresentation can have serious consequences beyond a discretionary denial. In some cases, it can trigger inadmissibility and require a waiver, if a waiver is available.

Applicants should never guess, minimize, or hide prior immigration history. Any prior visa application, border encounter, removal order, asylum filing, marriage-based filing, or inconsistent statement should be reviewed before filing.

Does This Mean Adjustment of Status Is No Longer Available?

No.

Adjustment of status still exists. USCIS has not eliminated the process. The law still allows eligible applicants to apply for adjustment from inside the United States if they meet the requirements.

However, the government is signaling that approval will not be treated as routine. Applicants should expect a more discretionary review, especially where there are negative immigration factors.

The most important distinction is this: being eligible to apply does not necessarily mean USCIS must approve the case.

USCIS officers may now ask not only, “Is this person eligible?” but also, “Should this person be granted adjustment of status as a matter of discretion?”

That second question may become much more important.

What Positive Factors Can Help an Adjustment Case?

Because USCIS is emphasizing discretion, applicants should be prepared to document the positive factors in their case.

Positive factors may include:

— Marriage to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;

— U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident children;

— Hardship to qualifying family members;

— Long residence in the United States;

— Stable employment history;

— Payment of taxes;

— No criminal record;

— Good moral character;

— Community involvement;

— Religious or volunteer service;

— Medical needs;

— Caregiving responsibilities;

— Rehabilitation, if there were prior issues;

— Compliance with immigration requirements where possible;

— Evidence that the applicant is a positive contributor to the United States.

The type of evidence needed will depend on the case. A strong adjustment packet should not only prove the legal requirements, but also explain why the applicant merits approval.

What Negative Factors Could Hurt an Adjustment Case?

USCIS may consider many negative factors, including:

— Prior immigration violations;

— Overstays;

— Unauthorized employment;

— Failure to maintain lawful status;

— Failure to depart after a temporary stay or parole period;

— Misrepresentation or fraud;

— False statements to immigration officials;

— Criminal history;

— Prior removal orders;

— Prior denied immigration filings;

— Conduct inconsistent with the purpose of the person’s visa, admission, or parole;

— Any other facts that suggest the applicant may not merit permanent residence as a matter of discretion.

Not every negative factor will result in a denial. Many cases have both positive and negative facts. The question is whether the positive equities outweigh the negative factors.

What Should Applicants Do Now?

Applicants should not panic, but they should take this update seriously.

Anyone preparing to file adjustment of status should carefully review their immigration history before filing. This includes prior entries, visa applications, overstays, unauthorized work, previous petitions, prior marriages, asylum filings, removal proceedings, criminal history, and any prior statements made to immigration officials.

Applicants should also gather stronger supporting evidence. A minimal filing may no longer be enough in cases with discretionary concerns.

A well-prepared adjustment application should include not only the required forms and civil documents, but also a clear presentation of the applicant’s positive factors. In some cases, it may be appropriate to include a legal cover letter or discretionary brief explaining why the applicant merits approval.

Should Some Applicants Consider Consular Processing Instead?

Possibly, but this decision should not be made without legal advice.

Consular processing may be the appropriate route for some applicants, but it can also carry major risks. Leaving the United States may trigger unlawful presence bars, prior removal order issues, waiver requirements, or other inadmissibility problems.

For example, a person who has accrued more than 180 days or more than one year of unlawful presence may trigger a three-year or ten-year bar upon departure. Some applicants may need a waiver before leaving. Others may not have a qualifying relative for a waiver. Some may have prior removal orders or unlawful reentry issues that make departure extremely risky.

Therefore, applicants should not assume that consular processing is safer simply because USCIS is emphasizing it. The correct strategy depends on the person’s full immigration history.

Will This Affect Marriage-Based Green Card Cases?

Yes, it may affect some marriage-based adjustment cases.

Marriage to a U.S. citizen remains one of the most common bases for adjustment of status. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens often receive important exemptions from certain adjustment bars, including some overstays and unauthorized employment.

However, this policy makes clear that USCIS may still consider negative facts as part of discretion. A marriage-based applicant may still need to prove not only that the marriage is real and that the applicant is eligible, but also that the applicant deserves adjustment as a favorable exercise of discretion.

This may be especially important where the applicant entered on a visitor visa, overstayed, worked without authorization, had prior filings, has criminal history, or has any issue involving misrepresentation.

Will This Affect Employment-Based Adjustment Cases?

It may.

Employment-based applicants are often subject to more status-related restrictions than immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The memo’s focus on failure to maintain status, unauthorized employment, and conduct inconsistent with the person’s nonimmigrant status could be especially relevant in employment-based adjustment cases.

Applicants in dual-intent categories, such as H-1B or L-1, may have stronger arguments because the law recognizes that they may have temporary nonimmigrant status while also pursuing permanent residence. However, the memo also makes clear that simply maintaining dual-intent status does not automatically guarantee a favorable exercise of discretion.

Are There Exceptions?

Yes. The memo acknowledges that there are exceptions, including certain dual-intent visa categories and certain immigrant categories where adjustment of status is the only or main available pathway.

Some categories also have special statutory rules. For example, certain humanitarian or special immigrant categories may be treated differently depending on the statute and regulations that apply.

Because adjustment law varies heavily by category, applicants should avoid assuming that this policy affects every case the same way.

What Does This Mean for Pending or Soon-To-Be-Filed Cases?

For cases that are already pending, applicants should be prepared for the possibility of additional scrutiny, requests for evidence, notices of intent to deny, or more detailed questioning at interviews.

For cases that are about to be filed, applicants should consider whether the filing needs to be strengthened before submission. This may include:

— Reviewing the applicant’s entire immigration history;

— Identifying any negative factors before USCIS does;

— Preparing truthful explanations for any issues;

— Gathering hardship evidence;

— Documenting family and community ties;

— Providing proof of good moral character;

— Including evidence of financial support, tax filing, employment, or caregiving responsibilities;

— Preparing a legal argument for why the case merits favorable discretion.

The goal is not to hide negative facts. The goal is to address them directly and present the strongest possible case.

Key Takeaway

For applicants, the immediate strategy should be documentation. A strong I-485 package should now be treated less like a simple eligibility filing and more like a discretionary record. Applicants should preserve evidence of lawful entry, maintenance of status where applicable, good-faith compliance with immigration rules, family unity, hardship, employment history, tax filings, community service, education, medical needs, caregiving obligations, lack of criminal history, and any national interest or economic benefit arguments. Applicants with prior status issues, overstays, unauthorized work, arrests, misrepresentation concerns, or complicated entries should address those issues proactively rather than assuming USCIS will overlook them.

Applicants should also avoid unnecessary travel, withdrawal, or consular-processing decisions without legal review. Leaving the United States can change the legal posture of a case dramatically. A pending I-485, pending advance parole, work authorization, underlying nonimmigrant status, unlawful presence history, and waiver eligibility must all be reviewed before any departure. For some applicants, remaining in the United States and defending the I-485 may be the best strategy. For others, consular processing may become necessary or strategically safer. The correct answer will depend heavily on the applicant’s immigration history, visa category, family situation, country conditions, unlawful presence exposure, and admissibility record.

At Elkhalil Law, P.C., our view is that this policy should be taken seriously but not treated as a reason for panic or automatic withdrawal. The law has not been repealed. Form I-485 still exists. USCIS may still approve adjustment applications. But the burden on applicants may now be heavier in practice, especially where the record contains negative facts or where USCIS believes the applicant should have pursued consular processing. The best response is not fear; it is careful legal analysis, stronger evidence, and a more deliberate case strategy.

The bottom line is that the new USCIS policy may make Adjustment of Status more difficult, more discretionary, and more evidence-intensive. It may also create litigation and further agency guidance in the coming weeks or months. Until there is more clarity, green card applicants should assume that USCIS may scrutinize not only whether they are eligible, but whether they deserve approval as a matter of discretion. Applicants with pending or planned I-485 filings should review their cases carefully and build the strongest possible record before USCIS makes a final decision.