USCIS Issues Major Policy Update on Adjustment of Status: What Applicants Need to Know: Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199

As I am sure you are aware by now, on May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, reaffirming that adjustment of status under INA § 245 is a “matter of discretion and administrative grace,” not a right or entitlement. The agency emphasized that adjusting status in the U.S. is “extraordinary relief” that allows applicants to avoid the ordinary consular visa process abroad, and officers are now directed to apply discretion with this framing in mind.

What this means in practice

It is possible, given this memo, that even when you meet every legal eligibility requirement, USCIS may still deny your application if the officer concludes that, on balance, the negative factors in your case outweigh the positive ones. The applicant carries the burden of demonstrating that approval is warranted.

USCIS officers are being instructed to closely examine:

• Any prior immigration violations, status overstays, or unauthorized employment

• Any fraud or misrepresentation in past dealings with U.S. agencies

• Whether you complied with the terms of your nonimmigrant visa or parole

• Whether you remained in the U.S. past your authorized period of stay

• Conduct after entry that may be inconsistent with the visa or parole you were granted

If adverse factors exist in your record, the memo states that you may need to show “unusual or even outstanding equities,” such as long-term family ties, significant community contributions, hardship to U.S. relatives, employment history, or other substantial positive factors to overcome them. Importantly, the absence of negative factors alone is no longer treated as sufficient.

Good news for dual-intent visa holders

USCIS confirmed that filing for adjustment while maintaining a dual-intent nonimmigrant status (such as H-1B or L-1) is not in itself adverse. However, simply holding that status may not, by itself, secure a favorable discretionary decision.

My recommendation

The memorandum states no effective date, and does not clarify whether the guidance will be applied to the adjudication of adjustment of status petitions that have already been filed and are pending with USCIS. If you have a pending or planned I-485 application, it is recommened that you:

• Identify any potential adverse factors in your immigration history.

• Proactively document the positive equities in your case (family ties, employment, community involvement, tax compliance, character evidence). It would be helpful for you to provide me a list or outline of positive equities in case we need it and compile as much evidence as you can.

• Strengthen your filing with supporting evidence before submission, rather than waiting to respond to a Request for Evidence or denial. It may be possible to upload the evidence if your case is currently pending.

A note on why this policy is legally vulnerable

The standard articulated in this policy memorandum represents not just a sudden reversal of well-settled USCIS practice, but a departure from what the statute itself actually says. INA § 245(a), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), provides only that “Any alien who has been lawfully admitted for temporary resident status…such status not having been terminated, may apply for adjustment of status…” While adjustment of status is, by the statute’s terms, a discretionary benefit, it has never before been treated as an “extraordinary” form of relief. The label “extraordinary relief” appears nowhere in the INA, and had Congress intended to impose that elevated standard, it would have done so specifically. Reading the word “may” in INA § 245(a) to import an “extraordinary” threshold is not only illogical, but it also conflicts with the plain reading of the statute and with decades of consistent USCIS practice.

The memorandum relies heavily on Matter of Blas, 15 I&N Dec. 626, 628 (BIA 1974), for the proposition that adjustment of status is generally “granted only as ‘a matter of discretion and administrative grace.’” The memorandum, however, omits any mention of BIA decisions such as Matter of Cavasos, 17 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980), and Matter of Ibrahim, 18 I&N Dec. 55 (BIA 1981) that came later, which held that adjustment should ordinarily be granted as a matter of discretion when the applicant is the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen.

To be clear, the memorandum does not bar noncitizens from filing for adjustment of status, and many applicants may still prevail by demonstrating “extraordinary circumstances” that prevent them from pursuing consular processing abroad. The real damage, however, will fall on those who can neither adjust inside the U.S. nor secure an immigrant visa overseas, for example, citizens of the 75 countries currently caught up in the Trump administration’s pause on immigrant visa issuance. Applicants with pending adjustment cases retain the right to remain in the United States, apply for employment authorization, and obtain advance parole, benefits that are particularly critical for nationals of severely backlogged countries such as India and China.

I anticipate that this policy will be challenged in the courts and will be following it closely.