05/24/2026
An update from Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) on the USCIS memorandum regarding green card (adjustment of status) applications:
What Happened?
On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum emphasizing that adjustment of status under INA § 245 is a discretionary benefit and an "extraordinary" form of relief that permits certain applicants to obtain lawful permanent residence without completing the ordinary immigration visa and consular processing system abroad.
The memorandum adopts a restrictive framing of adjustment of status, repeatedly characterizing it as an "extraordinary" form of relief rather than a routine pathway created by Congress. USCIS instructs officers to weigh adjustment applications under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis and to consider factors including immigration history, violations of status or parole conditions, unauthorized employment, fraud or false testimony, failure to depart after temporary admission or parole, family ties, moral character, humanitarian considerations, and other positive or adverse equities.
The memorandum also states that USCIS may issue future guidance directed at specific adjustment categories or populations.
Why Does It Matter?
The memorandum does not change the statutory eligibility requirements for adjustment of status. However, it signals a more restrictive discretionary posture in adjustment adjudications.
In "reminding" officers to apply the totality-of-the-circumstances test in exercising discretion, the memorandum asserts that an applicant's pursuit of adjustment of status in contravention of Congress' expectation that they depart after parole or other non-immigrant status, "usually accompanied by their violation of our immigration laws," is an "adverse factor." Quoting Matter of Blas, 15 I &N Dec. at 641, the memorandum states that such applicants may need to "offset" adverse factors "by a showing of unusual or even outstanding equities" and emphasizes that the absence of adverse factors alone is not enough to establish those equities.
Throughout the memorandum, USCIS repeatedly emphasizes consular processing as the preferred pathway to permanent residence and suggests that seeking adjustment after temporary admission or parole may weigh negatively in a discretionary analysis in some cases.
The memorandum is directed at adjustment categories where consular processing is available as an alternative pathway to permanent residence. As a result, practitioners may see increased scrutiny in adjustment applications involving:
Parole-based entries,
Overstays or status violations,
Unauthorized employment,
Failure to depart after temporary admission or parole,
Or other adverse immigration history factors, including indicia of misrepresentation or of improper immigrant intent.
While the memorandum does not itself create categorial restrictions, it may affect how officers weigh discretionary factors in individual cases and could contribute to increased Requests for Evidence (RFEs), Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), or discretionary denials in certain adjustment cases.
Within the memorandum itself, USCIS positions this guidance as a reminder of "long established" policy rather than a new policy, so it will likely affect adjudications for applications that are already pending.
Possible Limitations on This Policy Memorandum
The practical impact remains uncertain, and implementation may vary across offices and case types. CLINIC will continue to monitor this issue as it develops and share updates.
The memorandum guidance refers specifically to discretion for adjustment applications in categories under INA § 245 where consular processing is available to the applicant, which includes family-based cases. However, the statute itself provides an exception for adjustment after visa overstay for immediate relatives in INA § 245(c), indicating Congress' intent to allow these individuals to adjust status.
Consular processing is not available for certain categories under INA § 245, such as SIJ adjustment under INA § 245(g) or adjustment under INA § 245(i). While humanitarian categories such as U, T, or VAWA applicants, may have the ability to consular process under certain circumstances, humanitarian avenues were designed by Congress specifically to allow qualifying applicants to adjust status in the United States. The memorandum itself acknowledges that INA § 245(c) provides an exception for adjustment after visa overstay for VAWA self-petitioners, which indicates Congress' intent to allow these individuals to adjust in the United States.
Asylee and refugee adjustment is authorized separately under INA § 209 and should not be affected by this memorandum. Adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) of 1966 is similarly separately authorized. Consular processing is not available for these adjustment categories, so this memorandum should not apply.
Arguably, consular processing is not practically available to applicants affected by travel bans, therefore, their applications should not be affected by this guidance. Even if an officer asserts that this guidance applies, practitioners can argue that travel bans constitute an extraordinary circumstance weighing in favor of an exercise of discretion to allow adjustment of status. This argument may similarly apply where the United States does not have an operational consular presence in the applicant's home country, or when it is not safe for the applicant to return to that country.
