A significant policy shift announced on May 22, 2026, by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may reshape the traditional pathway to lawful permanent residence in the United States. This change mandates most foreign nationals already in the country to apply for a green card through a US consulate abroad. Previously, approximately half of the one million annual applicants pursued their green cards from within the US through an adjustment of status process. Now, many, including those married to US citizens, work and student visa holders, and humanitarian parolees, face the necessity of leaving the country and enduring a potentially protracted consular process, which may take months or even years.
USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler stated that applicants wishing to acquire a green card must now return to their home countries to apply, except under extraordinary circumstances. Kahler argues that this approach reduces the risk of individuals disappearing into the shadows if their residency applications are denied (full text).
The USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, dated May 21, 2026, delineates this policy. While it instructs officers to favor consular processing, it preserves limited exceptions, such as for holders of dual-intent visas, refugees, and certain humanitarian applicants. This policy does not amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, which enables the adjustment of status at the discretion of the Attorney General. The gap between the memo and the statute’s language has sparked legal challenges, with critics like New York immigration lawyer Cyrus D. Mehta arguing that the memo’s characterization of adjustment as “extraordinary relief” doesn’t align with the statute. The legal implications of this memo raise concerns about its adherence to the Administrative Procedure Act, spurring predictions of extensive litigation.
The broader legal landscape further complicates the picture. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo dismantled Chevron deference, requiring the courts to seek the best interpretation of statutory language, though it maintains respect for express delegations of discretion. This precedent could weigh in favor of USCIS’s discretion in applying the statute’s language.
This policy alteration underscores critical implications for US immigration processes, as it pushes the boundary between administrative discretion and statutory interpretation, setting the stage for a likely protracted legal contest. The impact on families and the wider community remains to be seen as individuals navigate this new regulatory environment.