USCIS recasts green card adjustment as “extraordinary relief”; universities and unions sue

What the two policies say

The May memo (PM-602-0199). In a May 21 memo, USCIS described adjustment of status under INA §245 — getting a green card from inside the U.S. — as “a matter of discretion and administrative grace” and “extraordinary relief” that lets applicants skip the consular visa process. After confirming statutory eligibility, officers are to apply heightened discretion, citing Matter of Blas to look for “unusual or even outstanding equities” that outweigh adverse factors. Choosing to adjust rather than process through a consulate is itself listed as a negative factor. Other negatives include overstays, unauthorized employment, conduct inconsistent with the purpose of a visa, entering with a preconceived intent to immigrate, and misrepresentation.

The memo adds no new eligibility requirements and no transition rules; dual-intent statuses such as H-1B and L-1 remain eligible.

Press release vs. memo. The line that adjustment will be granted “only in extraordinary circumstances” comes from USCIS’s May 22 press release and a spokesman, not the memo, which does not require applicants to prove extraordinary circumstances. In late May, a DHS spokesperson called the memo “just a reminder” of officers’ case-by-case discretion and said most applicants would not need to leave the U.S. Law firms advise relying on the memo’s text.

The August policy (PA-2026-05). On Aug. 5, USCIS updated its Policy Manual so that officers may deny a request without first issuing a request for evidence (RFE) or notice of intent to deny (NOID) when the evidence does not establish eligibility and no regulation requires notice. It applies to requests pending on or filed after that date.

Who is suing

On Oct. 5, the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard and Boston University chapters, SEIU and affiliates, Americans for Immigrant Justice and six applicants sued DHS and USCIS in federal district court in Massachusetts (No. 1:26-cv-14527). The applicants include spouses and parents of U.S. citizens who filed before the policies took effect. Counsel include Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The plaintiffs argue the policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act and Fifth Amendment due process, and that the August policy reaches applications filed before it existed. They seek a preliminary injunction and then vacatur of both policies. As of Oct. 15, no hearing had been set, no ruling issued and no government response reported.

How many people it affects

DHS figures cited in the complaint show that of about 1.36 million new permanent residents in fiscal 2024, about 783,000 — roughly 57% — adjusted status inside the U.S. Most H-1B-to-green-card and marriage-based cases go this route.

What it means for different applicants

• Employment-based (H-1B, L-1): Immigrant intent at entry is not a problem for dual-intent statuses, but eligibility alone is no longer enough. Present employment, tax and status records as favorable discretionary factors, and file a complete package the first time.
• Entered on B, F, TN or other single-intent status: Adjusting soon after entry will draw close scrutiny of whether you intended to immigrate when you arrived.
• Marriage-based: There is no clear official guidance yet on how the memo applies to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and law firms have not reached a consensus. Spouses of U.S. citizens are among the plaintiffs, so the court’s ruling will matter for this group.