USCIS Policy Shift on Adjustment of Status (PM-602-0199): Implications for Visa Holders and Attorneys

• 
  

• USCIS issued PM-602-0199 on May 22, 2026, declaring adjustment of status an "extraordinary" discretionary benefit.

• The law did not change, but the standard did: eligibility is no longer enough. USCIS officers must now weigh the totality of circumstances.

• H-1B and dual-intent visa holders are better positioned than single-intent holders (F-1, B-1/B-2), but are not immune; pending I-485 cases are affected immediately and retroactively.

• Legal challenges are anticipated on multiple grounds including statutory authority, congressional intent, APA procedural requirements, and retroactive application.

• ProfVal is not a law firm, but we can refer you to a law firm that can offer legal counsel.

The Official Announcement

Let's start with the official announcement. On May 22, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199. The official press release stated:

"We're returning to the original intent of the law to ensure aliens navigate our nation's immigration system properly. From now on, an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances. This policy allows our immigration system to function as the law intended instead of incentivizing loopholes." — USCIS Spokesperson Zach Kahler

The memo's full title is: "Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process."

USCIS directed officers to consider all relevant factors and information on a case-by-case basis when determining whether an alien warrants this extraordinary form of relief. The memo is effective immediately and applies to all pending and future adjustment of status applications. USCIS

The full text of PM-602-0199 is available at uscis.gov.

What News Organizations Are Reporting

Scale and Scope: Hundreds of Thousands Affected

• The Washington Post reported that the change could affect a wide swath of people and marks an escalation in the administration's efforts to curtail legal migration, potentially impacting hundreds of thousands of people . The Washington Post

• Fox News reported that green card petitioners will be required to wait for their application to be processed outside the country through consular processing via the U.S. Department of State, and that USCIS said it will grant adjustment of status only in extraordinary circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. Fox News

While the memo affects all adjustment of status applicants, the highest-risk group under its framework consists of single-intent visa holders — F-1 students, B-1/B-2 tourists, and others who entered on visas that were never designed to serve as a pathway to permanent residence. For these individuals, the memo's logic applies most directly: their very presence in the U.S. while pursuing a green card can now be framed as conduct inconsistent with the purpose of their admission. That the memo sweeps this broadly — reaching well beyond the professional and employment-based population — underscores just how significant a shift PM-602-0199 represents.

For the professional visa holders — H-1B, EB-1, and EB-2 NIW — the picture is more nuanced but no less urgent, as the sections below explain.

A Disruption to Decades of Established Practice

• ABC News reported that the policy upends a framework in place since the 1950s. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) — of which ProfVal is a multi-year sponsor — told ABC News that Congress designed the U.S.-based adjustment framework to prevent families from being separated and to ensure U.S. companies could retain employees during visa backlogs, and that the statutory scheme has been around for many decades. ABC News

The Administration's Stated Position

• Fox News reported that the Trump administration's position is that when noncitizens travel into the country via student visas, tourist visas, or temporary work status, they are supposed to leave once that term expires, and that temporary permission to be in the U.S. should not serve as the first step toward getting a green card. Fox News

What Law Firms Are Saying

1. The Law Did Not Change, But the Standard Did

This distinction matters for both attorneys advising clients and for petitioners assessing their own risk.

• WR Immigration (Wolfsdorf Rosenthal) noted that the memo "does not create new eligibility requirements or prohibit adjustment of status filings," but warned that it signals that USCIS intends to apply heightened discretionary scrutiny in cases where an applicant's conduct appears inconsistent with the purpose of their temporary admission, parole, or nonimmigrant status. WR Immigration

  
  

• Murray Osorio PLLC offered a direct bottom line: "The USCIS Policy Memo does not change the law. If you were eligible for AOS before the memo was issued, you remain eligible afterward." However, they cautioned that the guidance officers will use when exercising discretion has been materially revised. Murray Osorio

  
  

• Reddy Neumann Brown PC described the practical shift plainly: "The rules didn't change. The law didn't change. But the way your application will be judged has changed in a way that could cost you years of waiting. Eligibility is no longer enough. Worthiness is the new standard." RNLawGroup

2. H-1B and Dual-Intent Holders Are Better Positioned Than Single-Intent Holders — But Not Immune

For attorneys managing employment-based portfolios, and for H-1B holders watching this closely, the memo contains an important carve-out — with a significant caveat that a number of law firms have noted. Unlike F-1 students or B-2 tourists, H-1B and L-1 holders benefit from congressionally recognized dual-intent status, meaning their pursuit of a green card is not inherently inconsistent with their nonimmigrant classification.

However, law firms stated that this protection still has limits:

• Quarles explained that the new policy may be less applicable to dual-intent nonimmigrant categories such as H-1B and L-1 and their dependents, where applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with maintaining status as a temporary visa holder. However, the memo cautions that maintaining H-1B or L-1 dual-intent status alone is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. Quarles

• Ogletree Deakins similarly stated that applying for adjustment of status is not inherently inconsistent while maintaining nonimmigrant status in a dual-intent category such as H-1B or L-1, but that dual-intent status alone does not grant a favorable exercise of discretion. Ogletree

3. Officers Must Now Weigh the "Totality of Circumstances"

For attorneys, this means cases must be built, not just filed. For petitioners, it means your full record — not just your eligibility — is now under review.

• McLane Middleton noted that the memo instructs officers to conduct individualized assessments weighing negative factors such as immigration violations, overstays, unauthorized employment, prior arrests, and conduct inconsistent with the purpose of admission, and explicitly rejects any presumption of approval. McLane Middleton

• Murthy Law Firm warned that even applicants who satisfy every statutory eligibility requirement are not guaranteed approval, and that this memo signals that USCIS intends to apply heightened scrutiny in green card adjudications going forward. Murthy Law Firm

4. Staying in the U.S. to Adjust May Now Be Treated as an Adverse Factor

This is one of the most consequential — and counterintuitive — implications of the memo.

• Lehigh Valley Immigration Law explained that adjustment of status under INA § 245(a) is now to be treated as an act of administrative grace requiring "unusual or even outstanding equities" before USCIS will exercise discretion in the applicant's favor, and that for families across the country, this has practical consequences today. Lehighvalleyimmigrationlawyers

• Manifest Law noted that the memorandum relies on a specific interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act to claim that people who entered the U.S. as nonimmigrants are "expected" to depart before applying for permanent residence. Manifest Law

5. Pending I-485 Cases Are Directly Affected

Attorneys with active I-485 filings in their dockets, and petitioners currently mid-process, should take note: this memo does not apply only to future filings.

• Ballard Spahr confirmed that the memorandum is effective immediately and applies to all pending and future AOS applications. Ballard Spahr

• LexElite Law, PLLC placed the memo in a broader context, noting that it is the latest entry in a sequence of 2025–2026 USCIS actions tightening discretionary adjudication, including periods of enhanced vetting, adjudicatory pauses, and heightened discretionary scrutiny affecting applicants from certain designated high-risk countries. LexElite

6. Cases Must Now Be Argued, Not Just Filed

The evidentiary standard has effectively shifted from checklist to advocacy. This applies equally to how attorneys structure petitions and how petitioners understand what their package needs to accomplish.

• Clark Hill noted that this analysis requires adjudicators to carefully weigh immigration violations such as overstays and unauthorized employment — meaning the absence of negatives is no longer enough. Positive equities must be affirmatively documented and presented. Clark Hill

• Erickson Immigration Group emphasized that consular officers are directed to consider all relevant factors and information on a case-by-case basis when determining whether an alien warrants this extraordinary form of relief. Erickson Immigration Group

7. Legal Challenges Are Expected — and May Move Quickly

Multiple grounds for challenge have been identified by attorneys and advocacy organizations.

• The statutory argument. ABC News reported that immigration attorney Todd Pomerleau argued that the INA explicitly permits individuals who were legally inspected and admitted to adjust status from within the U.S., and that the administration cannot override a statute through a policy memo: "You can't, through a stroke of a pen, overturn a statute. I think it's illegal, and it's going to get shut down in court very quickly." ABC News

• The congressional intent argument. AILA — of which ProfVal is a multi-year sponsor — has argued that Congress specifically designed the U.S.-based adjustment framework to prevent families from being separated and to ensure U.S. companies could retain employees during visa backlogs, and that this framework has been in place and expanded since the 1950s. A challenge on these grounds would argue that USCIS is reinterpreting congressional intent without statutory authority. ABC News

• The Administrative Procedure Act argument. PM-602-0199 was issued as a policy memo, without notice-and-comment rulemaking. Challengers are expected to argue that it functions as a substantive rule and was therefore required to go through formal APA rulemaking before taking effect — a procedural argument that has succeeded in other immigration contexts in recent years.

• The retroactivity argument. Applying new and more demanding discretionary standards to already-filed cases raises due process concerns. Ballard Spahr confirmed that the memorandum is effective immediately and applies to all pending and future AOS applications, which means petitioners who filed in good faith under prior standards now face a retroactively altered review. Courts have previously been receptive to retroactivity arguments in immigration benefit adjudications. Ballard Spahr

For Petitioners: What You Should Do Now

If you have a pending I-485, or are preparing to file one, some of the law firms cited show that your case now needs to function as an affirmative argument — not just a completed form. USCIS officers are looking at the totality of your record: your contributions, your compliance history, your professional standing, and your ties to the United States.

If you do not already have an attorney,we think that it's more important than ever to work with one. If needed, we can recommend an attorney to you. There is no cost to this referral.

A well-constructed support document is more important than ever.

• EB-1 and EB-2 NIW applicants: A research-backed expert opinion letter that clearly establishes your extraordinary ability or national interest contribution is one of the strongest positive equity factors you can present. As we've written about in our posts on rising EB-1A standards and EB-2 NIW adjudication trends, scrutiny was already increasing before this memo. It has now intensified further.

• EB-2 NIW applicants: A professional plan that articulates the national importance of your proposed endeavor provides officers with concrete, documented equities — exactly what the new discretionary standard demands.

• H-1B holders: An H-1B expert opinion letter establishes your specialty occupation credentials and professional standing on the record.

ProfVal does not provide legal advice. If you need legal guidance on how PM-602-0199 affects your specific situation, we can refer you to an experienced immigration attorney. Contact us to get started or request a referral.

For Immigration Attorneys: What This Means for Your Practice

Every active I-485 in your docket is now subject to a higher discretionary bar — retroactively. For employment-based cases, particularly EB-1, EB-2 NIW, and H-1B-to-green-card matters, the evidentiary foundation of each petition needs to be reviewed in light of this memo.

Cases that were filed as checklist exercises now need to function as curated arguments. Officers are weighing the totality of circumstances, and the absence of adverse factors is no longer sufficient. Your clients need documented positive equities — professional standing, contributions, compliance history, community ties — on the record.

ProfVal supports over 1,000 immigration attorneys with expert opinion letters and professional plans that are research-backed, signed by distinguished U.S.-based experts, and built to meet the evidentiary standards USCIS applies. As adjudication standards tighten, the quality and credibility of support documents matters more, not less.

If you would like to discuss how ProfVal can support your clients' pending or upcoming filings in light of PM-602-0199, contact us here.