Is Adjustment Of Status Still A Viable Green Card Path? (US)

On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum that materially reshapes the agency’s approach to adjustment of status (AOS), the process by which many foreign nationals apply for a green card from within the United States. Although presented as a reaffirmation of existing law, the memorandum directs immigration officers to treat AOS as a “matter of discretion” and “administrative grace” that should be used only as “extraordinary relief.” This unexpected change marks a stark departure from decades of uneventful AOS adjudications and creates significant changes for hundreds of thousands of current and future green card applicants unable to presume that completing the green card process from within the United States remains the default option.

Instead, consular processing at US consulates and embassies abroad is positioned as the standard option for most green card applicants, likely leading to significant processing backlogs and unpredictable family separations and potential losses of status. The policy appears to be effective immediately, which would include pending cases and leave little transition time for applicants and employers to recalibrate expectations and plan new strategies. While AOS remains legally available, USCIS has made it unpredictable and no longer a strong, default option.

Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act has always treated AOS as a discretionary benefit, stating that approval “may” be granted at the agency’s discretion and creating an exercise of administrative judgment rather than entitlement. In practice, that discretion has been liberally applied, with adjudications focused primarily on whether statutory eligibility requirements were met and whether glaring violations of have been perpetrated by the applicant. Officers are now directed to exchange a checklist-based analysis for a totality-of-the-circumstances framework, asking whether the applicant merits the privilege of remaining in the United States to adjust status instead of completing the process through consular processing abroad.

Key Discretionary Factors

Under the new, broader analytical framework, favorable equities, such as family ties, humanitarian considerations and evidence of good moral character, must be balanced against any adverse factors to determine whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. Notably, the very decision to pursue AOS may now carry negative discretionary weight. Accordingly, applicants may need to present stronger positive equities, such as long-term residence, consistent compliance with immigration requirements or significant contributions, to support a favorable exercise of discretion.

The guidance also indicates that USCIS may issue additional, category-specific policy direction to assist adjudicators in identifying which cases may justify this “act of grace” as an exception to consular processing. In practice, the new approach signals a more rigorous and holistic review with numerous grounds for an officer to question and deny an AOS applicant. Officers are expected to closely scrutinize an applicant’s complete immigration history, compliance with status requirements and overall equities in deciding whether adjustment of status is appropriate. Given the recency of the memo, it is difficult to predict how the policy will be implemented, but increased scrutiny in many visa categories has shown an administration willing to deny immigration benefits for individuals who have been in the country for many years.

What This Means for Employers and Applicants

This policy shift carries immediate implications for both employers and foreign nationals. Individuals in temporary visa categories, such as H-1B, L-1 and F-1, have long relied on AOS as a predictable final step in the green card process. That assumption is now less certain, particularly given the policy’s likely application to pending adjudications. Prior to this new guidance, many AOS applicants relied upon temporary work and travel authorization to remain in the United States.

A greater reliance on consular processing introduces practical challenges due to uneven appointment availability, enhanced security vetting, maintaining underlying nonimmigrant status while awaiting appointments, travel bans and processing delays. These factors will complicate workforce planning and, in some cases, may require employees to remain outside the United States for extended periods while awaiting immigrant visa issuance.

The memo even affects dual-intent visa holders, those admitted to the U.S. in temporary visa categories who may also harbor the intent to pursue permanent residence, that traditionally have seen AOS as a safe passage to a green card. The memo concedes that AOS “is not inconsistent with simultaneously maintaining nonimmigrant status in a category with dual intent,” but counters that maintaining proper dual intent status “is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.” Officers must still determine whether the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion, regardless of technical eligibility.

Those in visa categories that do not permit dual intent, meaning they may not have the intent to seek a green card when they enter the United States, are particularly at risk for AOS denial. F-1 student visa holders, for example, will need to consider whether they have sufficient favorable factors to attempt to adjust status and risk falling out of F-1 status should their AOS petition be denied.

Key Takeaways

• Adjustment of status is being repositioned as a limited, discretionary benefit, not a routine pathway, with consular processing becoming the primary route for most applicants.

• Meeting AOS eligibility requirements alone will not ensure approval.

• Strong positive equities will be critical for those pursuing AOS.

• Employers should plan for longer timelines and potential disruptions associated with consular processing and should begin employees’ green card processes earlier.

This policy will face legal challenges, and its ultimate impact will depend on how it is implemented. We await further category-specific guidance for potential or current AOS applicants and will provide updates as we receive new information.