The LAW Way

Update — May 27, 2026: In the days since this article was first published, the practical scope of PM-602-0199 has come into sharper focus. According to publicly available USCIS data, more than 500,000 green cards were issued in FY 2024 to people already inside the United States through adjustment of status — representing over half of all green cards granted that year. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has since issued a public statement noting that many immigration attorneys question the memo’s legal basis and anticipate court challenges in the weeks ahead. AILA has also highlighted a critical practical obstacle: U.S. consulates have reportedly stopped processing green card applications for nationals of 75 countries, meaning that for a significant portion of affected applicants, “consular processing abroad” is not a meaningful alternative pathway. None of this changes the analysis below — the memo remains a discretion-focused recalibration rather than a change in statutory eligibility — but it sharpens the stakes considerably and underscores why individualized legal counsel matters more than ever. I will continue to update this piece as the policy unfolds and as litigation develops.

---

If you have been scrolling through immigration news lately, you have probably seen alarming headlines about a new USCIS policy that is “changing the rules” for Green Cards. Social media posts are warning people to panic. Some are saying adjustment of status is over. Others are saying nothing has changed at all.

The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between — and understanding exactly where requires stepping back from the noise.

Let me break it down.

What Actually Happened

On May 21, 2026, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199. Its official title is almost a paragraph long, but its core message can be summarized in one sentence:

Getting a Green Card from inside the United States is not a right — it is a privilege, and USCIS officers are being reminded to treat it that way.

That is it. That is the memo.

It does not cancel Green Cards. It does not repeal the law that allows people to apply from inside the country. It does not eliminate any visa category. What it does is tell USCIS officers to look more carefully — and more skeptically — at applications filed from inside the United States rather than through the standard process abroad.

A Quick Primer: Two Ways to Get a Green Card

To understand why this matters, you need to know that there are generally two paths to lawful permanent residence in the United States.

Path 1: Consular Processing. You apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad. You go through your interview outside the United States and, if approved, enter the country as a permanent resident. This is the standard, ordinary route that Congress designed.

Path 2: Adjustment of Status. If you are already inside the United States on a valid visa or parole, you may be able to apply to become a permanent resident without leaving. This is called Adjustment of Status, and it is what you file when you submit Form I-485.

Both paths are legal. Both are available to qualifying applicants. But here is what PM-602-0199 makes explicit: Adjustment of Status has always been — and continues to be — what immigration law calls an extraordinary form of relief. It allows you to skip the ordinary process. And skipping the ordinary process, the memo reminds us, is a privilege that must be earned, not a shortcut that comes automatically.

What the Memo Actually Changes

Here is the part that matters practically, and where a lot of the confusion lives.

The memo does not change who is eligible for Adjustment of Status. The statute — INA § 245 — remains exactly as Congress wrote it. What the memo changes is how officers are directed to exercise their discretion when deciding whether to approve an otherwise eligible application.

Think of it this way. Eligibility is the entry ticket — it gets you in the door. Discretion is the judgment call about whether you deserve to stay once you are inside. PM-602-0199 is entirely about that second question.

Under the memo, USCIS officers are now explicitly directed to treat certain facts as adverse factors — things that count against you in that judgment call. The most significant ones are:

• Failing to leave the United States when your visa or parole expired
• Violating the terms of your immigration status, such as working without authorization
• Using Adjustment of Status to avoid going through consular processing when you could have done so
• Conduct that was inconsistent with the original purpose of your visa

At the same time — and this is equally important — the memo requires officers to weigh those adverse factors against positive ones. Family ties in the United States, stable employment, tax compliance, good moral character, community contributions, humanitarian circumstances. None of these factors disappear. The law still requires a genuine, individualized balancing of everything in your record.

What the Memo Does NOT Do

Because there is so much misinformation circulating, it is worth being direct about what this policy does not say.

It does not end Adjustment of Status. INA § 245 is still the law. People will continue to adjust status inside the United States every day.

It does not mean everyone on a temporary visa is disqualified. The memo specifically recognizes dual intent visa categories — such as H-1B and L-1 — as compatible with applying for a Green Card from inside the country.

It does not mean consular processing is now mandatory for everyone. Consular processing is not available in every immigrant category, and the memo acknowledges that. For some people, Adjustment of Status is the only realistic pathway.

It does not mean a single problem in your history automatically kills your case. The law requires a totality-of-circumstances analysis. One adverse factor does not equal a denial. What it means is that adverse factors now carry more weight in the officer’s analysis, and a well-prepared, affirmative equity record matters more than ever before.

The One Nuance Everyone Needs to Hear

If you hold an H-1B, L-1, or another dual intent visa, you may have read that you are protected. You are — but only partially, and this is where many people are being misled by oversimplified social media content.

The memo explicitly states that maintaining a valid dual intent status is not sufficient on its own to guarantee a favorable outcome. In other words, being in H-1B status when you file your I-485 is a strong positive factor, but it does not put the discretionary question to rest. You still need to demonstrate, through your full record, that favorable discretion is warranted.

This does not mean H-1B holders should panic. It means they should be prepared.

A Word About Consular Processing and “Home Country”

One thing worth clarifying — because it has been stated incorrectly in several places, including some social media posts — is what consular processing actually requires geographically.

Consular processing does not necessarily mean returning to your home country. It means completing your immigrant visa interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad, which can in many cases be a third country. This distinction matters enormously for people from countries where returning home poses serious safety risks. The legal option to consular process through a third country exists and has always existed.

So What Should You Actually Do?

If you have a pending Adjustment of Status application, do not withdraw it without speaking to an immigration attorney first. Withdrawal can have serious consequences, including loss of work authorization and, for some applicants, unlawful presence consequences upon departure.

If you are planning to file, now is the time to build what practitioners call an equity record — a documented, evidence-based story of your life in the United States that goes beyond just checking the statutory boxes. Tax returns, employment records, community involvement, family documents, proof of status maintenance. All of it matters more now than it did before this memo.

If you are on a temporary visa and maintaining lawful status, keep doing exactly that. Do not let your status lapse in reliance on a pending I-485. Under this memo, loss of underlying status can become a discretionary vulnerability even when statutory eligibility remains intact.

And if you are thinking about international travel with a pending I-485, talk to a lawyer before you book anything. Advance Parole remains legally available, but the policy environment makes careful planning essential.

The Bottom Line

PM-602-0199 is a real policy shift — but it is not the apocalyptic change some headlines suggest, nor is it a nothing-burger that can be ignored. It is a meaningful recalibration of how USCIS officers are expected to exercise their discretion, and it increases the practical stakes for anyone applying for a Green Card from inside the United States.

The law still works. The pathways still exist. But the days of treating Adjustment of Status as a routine administrative filing are over. Every case now needs to be built as if discretion is the question — because under this memo, it is.

If you have questions about how this affects your specific situation, consult a qualified immigration attorney. General information — including this article — is not a substitute for individualized legal advice.

A Note on the Purpose of This Article

This article has one goal: to explain what PM-602-0199 actually says, as objectively and clearly as possible, without the alarmism that has surrounded it. Understanding a policy is not the same as endorsing it. The truth is that at this point, we do not fully know what the practical application of this memorandum will look like — or what it will actually mean for real people with pending or future Adjustment of Status applications. The broader immigration landscape over the past several months has been marked by rapidly shifting policies, active litigation, and federal courts issuing rulings that have paused or modified agency action — and this memorandum will likely be no exception to that pattern. What a memorandum says today and what happens at the adjudicator’s desk are not always the same thing, and how this guidance unfolds in practice will become clearer as courts, practitioners, and applicants engage with it over time. I share this analysis because informed communities make better decisions — not because I believe this policy is just, inevitable, or beyond challenge. As always, the most important step anyone can take is to consult a qualified immigration attorney about their specific situation.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Lissie Albornoz