New USCIS Policy Limiting Adjustment Of Status: What You Need To Know

On May 22, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a new policy memorandum, PM-602-0199, addressing how officers should exercise discretion in adjustment of status (AOS) adjudications. USCIS also released a related press announcement emphasizing the agency views immigrant visa processing at a U.S. consulate abroad as the default route to a green card for most people, with AOS applications filed inside the U.S. treated as a discretionary option.

For HR teams, employers sponsoring foreign talent, and foreign nationals already in the U.S., the takeaway is straightforward: AOS is still available, but USCIS officers have been told to look harder at each case before approving one. The law has not changed, but how cases are reviewed in practice may shift, so case strategy and timing deserve a fresh look.

What is Adjustment of Status?

Adjustment of status is the final step of the “green card” process for individuals who are in the United States, have maintained their lawful immigration status, have been sponsored for permanent residence on employment, investment, family, or other statutory grounds, and who currently have an immigrant visa available to them. Originally introduced to the statute in 1952, the adjustment of status provision has been amended several times to clarify which individuals are allowed to obtain their permanent residence in the United States and which are required to obtain permanent residency through an immigrant visa application at a consulate in their home country.

Historically, USCIS officers exercising discretion in adjustment cases followed longstanding agency and Board of Immigration Appeals precedent recognizing that favorable discretion should ordinarily be exercised where applicants establish eligibility and do not present significant adverse factors such as fraud, criminal conduct, or substantial immigration violations.

The new memorandum shifts this framework. It instructs officers to conduct a broader evaluation of each applicant’s immigration history. The memo does not mention any positive factors, such as compliance with immigration requirements, U.S. citizen family members, and gainful employment, and stresses that officers must consider negative factors, including any history of status violations or conduct inconsistent with the purpose of the applicant’s original nonimmigrant entry. The memorandum also signals that officers may consider why an applicant chose adjustment of status over consular processing as part of the discretionary analysis.

Notably, the memorandum relies on case law emphasizing that adjustment of status is discretionary, even when statutory eligibility is established. However, it does not cite other longstanding precedents holding that adjustment should ordinarily be granted absent significant adverse factors. The memo’s title, and the accompanying press communications also characterize adjustment of status as an “extraordinary measure” rather than the routine process it has been for most applicants—though the memorandum itself does not go that far.

Has the Law Itself Changed?

Importantly, the Immigration and Nationality Act has not changed.

Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act continues to authorize adjustment of status for eligible applicants physically present in the United States, and the underlying regulations governing eligibility remain in place. Existing USCIS Policy Manual provisions also continue to recognize adjustment of status as an available pathway for many employment-based, family-based, and diversity visa applicants.

The new policy memorandum also promises additional guidance on the application of the discretionary standard to specific categories of adjustment applicants. Questions regarding the scope and implementation of this policy may ultimately be addressed through future agency guidance or litigation.

The policy may lead to increased scrutiny across a broad range of adjustment of status cases, including both employment-based and family-based categories, although the practical impact on adjudications remains unclear at this early stage. Individuals in H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN, F-1, and other nonimmigrant classifications who are pursuing or planning to pursue permanent residence through adjustment of status should pay close attention. Applicants from countries with significant immigrant visa backlogs or those subject to travel restrictions may face particularly complex strategic decisions, as consular processing timelines in those situations can be less predictable.

Importantly, the memorandum also reiterates that pursuing adjustment of status is not inconsistent with maintaining lawful status in recognized dual intent classifications such as H-1B and L-1 categories. USCIS notes, however, that maintenance of lawful status alone does not necessarily warrant a favorable exercise of discretion in every case.

For employers, the practical implications include the need to reassess immigration strategies for sponsored employees, anticipate potential delays or increased Requests for Evidence in pending adjustment cases, and evaluate whether consular processing may be preferable for certain employees depending on their individual circumstances.

Given the evolving nature of this guidance, both individuals and employers should take proactive steps to assess their exposure and adjust their strategies accordingly.

It is important to note that USCIS has not announced any suspension of adjustment filings, nor has the agency indicated that pending applications will be denied solely on the basis of this memorandum. Similar memoranda emphasizing discretionary review in other immigration contexts have in the past generated significant concern but ultimately produced more limited operational changes than initially anticipated. Nevertheless, applicants and employers should take this guidance seriously and plan accordingly.