Updated:
Read Time:
What the memo is and why it matters
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, titled "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." In plain terms, the memo tells USCIS officers to treat adjustment of status, the process of getting a green card without leaving the country, as an extraordinary, discretionary favor rather than something an applicant is entitled to simply by meeting the eligibility rules. It instructs officers that where a person could instead obtain an immigrant visa abroad through consular processing, that availability is a reason to look harder before granting the green card from inside the United States.
The memo did not change any statute or regulation. What it changed is the adjudicating posture: the agency's stated default has shifted from "approve an eligible, clean application" toward "scrutinize whether this applicant deserves the favor of adjusting here at all." A USCIS press release accompanying the memo went further than the memo's text, stating that the agency will grant adjustment "only in extraordinary circumstances." The memo took effect immediately and, according to USCIS, applies to applications already pending as well as new ones. Because hundreds of thousands of adjustment applications are pending at any given time, and because the memo's practical scope is still unclear, it has become one of the most closely watched immigration developments of 2026.
Background: what adjustment of status is and where it came from
Adjustment of status is the process, on Form I-485, by which a person already in the United States obtains lawful permanent residence (a green card) without traveling abroad. The alternative is consular processing, in which the person obtains an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate in another country and then enters as a permanent resident. The two routes reach the same destination by different roads, and our separate guides to adjustment of status and consular processing explain each in detail.
Adjustment of status was created by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and broadened over the following decades. Before it existed, essentially everyone seeking a green card had to leave and process abroad. Adjustment was designed as a practical convenience for people who were already lawfully present, sparing them an expensive and disruptive trip. The governing statute is INA section 245, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1255. Its core provision, 245(a), says an eligible person's status "may" be adjusted "in the discretion" of the government, which is the textual hook the new memo relies on.
Over the years, Congress did not leave eligibility to discretion alone. Adjustment under 245(a) is open only to people who were inspected and admitted or paroled, so most people who entered without inspection cannot use it at all. Beyond that threshold, Congress wrote specific bars into 245(c) that disqualify many people who fell out of status or worked without authorization, then carved out exceptions: immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are exempt from several of those bars, 245(k) forgives short status lapses for many employment-based applicants, and 245(i) grandfathers certain applicants with older petitions. In other words, Congress already decided, in statute, who may and may not adjust. That point sits at the center of the legal debate over the new memo, discussed below.
How discretion worked before this memo
Discretion in adjustment cases is not new. The word "may" in the statute has always meant that an officer can deny an application even when every technical requirement is met. What is new is how that discretion is framed and how often it is expected to bite.
For more than fifty years, the governing standard came from the Board of Immigration Appeals decision in Matter of Arai (1970). Under that standard, when an otherwise-eligible applicant has no adverse factors, adjustment is ordinarily granted; when there are adverse factors, the applicant must offset them with favorable equities, and serious negatives require unusual or even outstanding equities to overcome. Later decisions, including Matter of Cavazos (1980) and Matter of Ibrahim (1981), confirmed that immediate relatives in particular should generally be granted adjustment as a matter of discretion.
In day-to-day practice, this meant discretion functioned as a balancing test that mainly mattered when an applicant had a problematic history. Officers weighed positive factors such as family ties in the United States, length of residence, steady employment, property or a business, tax compliance, and good character, against negative factors such as immigration violations, unauthorized employment, fraud or misrepresentation, and criminal history. A clean, eligible applicant could reasonably expect approval, and a discretionary denial of such a person was rare. The new memo does not rewrite the list of factors, but it changes the starting presumption.
What the memo actually says
The memo's operative instruction is narrower than some headlines suggest, but still significant. Its central directive is that where consular processing is available to an applicant in the immigrant category they are using, the officer deciding whether to grant a favorable exercise of discretion must take into account what the memo calls the consistent understanding of the courts and the Board that adjustment is an extraordinary discretionary relief to the regular immigrant visa process and an act of administrative grace. The memo places the burden on the applicant to show why discretion should be exercised in their favor, and tells officers to weigh the totality of the circumstances to decide whether the person is suitable for permanent residence and whether approval is in the best interest of the United States.
The memo also offers a rationale rooted in congressional intent. It reasons that people admitted as nonimmigrants or paroled into the country are expected to leave when the purpose of their stay is finished, and that when such a person stays and seeks to adjust instead, it runs counter to those expectations. It grounds the "matter of grace, not entitlement" framing in federal court and Board decisions, citing cases such as Patel v. INS (7th Circuit, 1984) and Matter of Blas (BIA, 1974). Critics point out that it does not cite the decisions cutting the other way, such as Matter of Arai, Matter of Cavazos, and Matter of Ibrahim.
A few practical features matter. The memo states it is effective immediately and frames itself as a restatement of longstanding law rather than a new rule. USCIS has indicated it applies to pending applications as well as future ones. It reaches across categories, including family-based applicants, employment-based applicants, self-petitioners, and dependents. And, importantly, it is explicitly a framework: the agency says it will review the various pathways to adjustment and specific populations of applicants, and may issue further category-specific guidance later. In other words, more targeted instructions are expected to follow.
What the memo is not
Because the reaction has been intense, it is worth being precise about the memo's limits.
It is not a change to the law. The statutory eligibility requirements for adjustment are exactly what they were, and the memo creates no new filing requirements, forms, or fees. What changed is how officers are told to exercise discretion at the final step, not who qualifies.
It does not eliminate adjustment of status or bar eligible people from applying. People who qualify can still file Form I-485, and applicants with pending cases keep the benefits that come with a pending application, including the ability to apply for work authorization and advance parole. Those benefits are especially important for people from heavily backlogged countries, where waiting abroad is not a realistic option, a problem tied to the visa bulletin and priority dates.
It does not revoke green cards that have already been granted. The memo governs how USCIS decides pending and future I-485 applications. It is not a tool for taking permanent residence away from people who already have it.
It is not a regulation. It was issued as an internal policy memorandum, without the notice-and-comment rulemaking that the law generally requires for binding substantive rules. That distinction is central to the legal challenges described below.
And discretion itself is not new. Adjustment has always been discretionary in the statute. What the memo does is shift the default from "ordinarily granted absent negatives" toward "extraordinary relief," and add the availability of consular processing as a factor weighing against adjusting inside the country. It also does not, by its own terms, force anyone to consular process or override the dual-intent categories; USCIS has acknowledged that dual intent remains compatible with seeking adjustment.
Who is most and least affected
The memo applies broadly, but its weight is not felt evenly.
Better positioned are applicants in dual-intent categories with clean, continuous status, such as long-term H-1B specialty occupation workers and L-1A intracompany transferees, where the law has always contemplated that the person may pursue permanent residence. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens also remain among the strongest profiles, both because of the statutory protections Congress built into 245(c) and because Board precedent has long favored adjustment for that group. Employment-based applicants who have carefully maintained status, and anyone with a long and clean immigration history, are comparatively well placed.
More likely to face heightened scrutiny are applicants in single-intent categories such as students (F-1), exchange visitors (J-1), and visitors (B-1/B-2), people who overstayed or whose conduct looks inconsistent with the temporary purpose of their admission, and parolees who did not depart when their parole ended. The memo specifically signals that failing to depart after the purpose of an admission or parole is accomplished can count as a negative discretionary factor. Because USCIS has promised category-specific follow-on guidance, applicants in any group the agency views as straying from the ordinary consular path should treat this memo as a warning of more detailed rules to come rather than the last word.
The legal challenges and where things stand
The memo is in force now, but it is widely expected to be challenged, and several lines of attack have emerged among immigration lawyers and scholars.
The first is that it conflicts with the statute and with congressional intent. The argument runs that the word "may" in 245(a) authorizes discretion but does not make adjustment "extraordinary," that Congress already decided who is barred from adjusting in 245(c) and who is protected in 245(i) and 245(k), and that using discretion to re-restrict at the final step scrutinizes the very conduct Congress chose not to bar at the eligibility step. The second is procedural: that a memo working this large a change is really a substantive rule and should have gone through formal notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, an argument addressed in our article on the APA and mandamus. The third is that applying a harsher discretionary standard to already-filed cases raises retroactivity and due-process concerns.
Two background developments strengthen the challengers' hand. In 2024, the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ended the Chevron doctrine, under which courts had deferred to an agency's reading of an ambiguous statute, so a court is now freer to decide for itself whether the agency's interpretation is correct, as explained in our U.S. Legal System Overview. And separately, litigation over related country-specific discretion measures has already produced a partial preliminary injunction, an early sign that at least some of this year's discretion policies are vulnerable. As of late this writing in May 2026, however, PM-602-0199 itself has not been blocked by a court and remains active, so applicants and employers should plan around it while watching for rulings that could pause or narrow it.
What it means in practice
For people with green-card cases, the short summary is that eligibility is no longer enough; the discretionary record now matters more than it did before. In practical terms, immigration attorneys are responding by building a strong showing of positive equities directly into the initial filing, documenting family ties, lawful presence, employment, tax compliance, and community connections, and by addressing any negative factors head-on with evidence and explanation rather than leaving an officer to fill in the blanks unfavorably. Rushing a thin application to beat some imagined deadline is not the answer, because the memo sets no cutoff date that treats earlier and later filings differently.
It is also important not to assume that leaving to consular process is a safe fallback. Departing the United States after accruing more than six months of unlawful presence can trigger the three- and ten-year reentry bars, a serious trap covered in our articles on unlawful presence and the reentry bars and the provisional unlawful presence waiver. On top of that, separate 2026 measures have paused immigrant visa issuance for nationals of a number of countries, discussed in our article on travel and entry restrictions, so for some people consular processing is not actually available right now even though the memo treats its theoretical availability as a reason to be cautious about adjusting here. Because the stakes are high and the situation is changing quickly, anyone weighing whether to file for adjustment, or already in the process, should get advice tailored to their specific facts before making a move.
Sources and further reading
These are the primary and official sources behind this article. This area is changing quickly, so check for newer guidance and any court rulings before relying on it.
USCIS, Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, "Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace" (May 21, 2026): https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-602-0199-AdjustmentOfStatusAndDiscretion-20260521.pdf
USCIS Newsroom (press releases and alerts): https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom
Immigration and Nationality Act, section 245, 8 U.S.C. 1255 (adjustment of status, including the 245(c) bars and the 245(i) and 245(k) provisions): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1255
Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 245 (adjustment of status regulations): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/part-245
USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), including the chapter on the use of discretion: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7
USCIS, Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status: https://www.uscis.gov/i-485
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (ending Chevron deference): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Important note. This article is general legal information for educational purposes, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The policy described here is new, its scope and application are still unsettled, and it may be narrowed, paused, or struck down by a court, or expanded by further guidance. Whether and how it affects a particular case depends heavily on the individual's category, immigration history, and country of nationality. Everything here is current as of late May 2026 and should be confirmed against the official sources above. For advice about a specific adjustment-of-status matter, consult a qualified immigration attorney.
