USCIS Memo PM-602-0193 Explained: Why Diversity Visa Green Card Cases Are Being Put on Hold

Executive Summary (Quick Read)

• USCIS has ordered officers to hold and review pending Adjustment of Status applications filed by Diversity Visa (DV) lottery winners already in the United States

• The directive comes from USCIS Memo PM-602-0193 Diversity Visa Adjustment Suspension, issued December 19, 2025

• The memo does not set a timeline, deadline, or clear end date for the hold

• DV applicants face unique risk because diversity visas expire at the end of each fiscal year

• The memo fits into a broader pattern of administrative freezes and discretionary review affecting lawful immigration pathways

• Journalists and researchers should treat this memo as a policy signal, not a routine processing update

Primary source:

USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0193 —
Hold and Review of Pending Adjustment of Status Applications Filed by Aliens Under the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program

 

 

What Is USCIS Memo PM-602-0193?

On December 19, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0193, directing USCIS officers to pause adjudication and conduct additional review of certain green card applications filed by Diversity Visa lottery winners inside the United States.

These are Adjustment of Status applications (Form I-485), not consular cases abroad.

The memo instructs officers to:

• Place affected DV-based adjustment cases on hold

• Conduct additional review and vetting

• Re-examine cases that may otherwise have been approvable

• Delay final adjudication pending further guidance

Notably, the memo does not:

• Provide an end date

• Set review criteria

• Explain how long cases may remain pending

• Offer guidance on appeal or recourse

What the Memo Does Not Say (But Matters)

PM-602-0193 is short and procedural, but its omissions are significant.

The memo does not explain:

• How long the hold will last

• Whether cases will be denied, re-interviewed, or simply delayed

• Whether approvals can resume before the fiscal year ends

• Whether applicants will receive notice beyond normal case-status updates

For Diversity Visa applicants, these omissions are critical because time itself can determine eligibility.

Who Is Affected by the Hold?

Directly affected applicants

• Diversity Visa lottery winners already in the U.S.

• Applicants who filed Form I-485 (Adjustment of Status)

• Applicants who may have already completed interviews

• Applicants awaiting final approval or green card production

Indirectly affected groups

• DV selectees planning to adjust status later in the fiscal year

• Applicants relying on expiring work authorization or status

• Advocacy organizations tracking DV issuance outcomes

• Researchers analyzing immigration backlogs and discretionary enforcement

Why Diversity Visa Cases Are Uniquely Vulnerable

The Diversity Visa program operates under strict statutory deadlines.

Key constraints:

• Diversity visas are capped at 50,000 per fiscal year

• All visas must be issued by September 30

• Unused visas cannot roll over

• Delays can function as de facto denials

The U.S. Department of State has repeatedly confirmed that DV eligibility expires at the end of the fiscal year, regardless of cause.

Official DV program overview:
Green Card Through the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program

This makes administrative holds far more consequential for DV applicants than for family- or employment-based applicants.

How PM-602-0193 Fits a Larger USCIS Pattern

PM-602-0193 does not stand alone.

In the weeks leading up to this memo, USCIS issued other policy directives placing benefit applications on hold, including:

• PM-602-0192, which ordered the suspension and review of pending applications for certain applicants from designated countries
  USCIS Policy Alert PM-602-0192

Together, these memos reflect a broader shift toward:

• Administrative pauses instead of formal rulemaking

• Expanded discretionary review

• Heightened security framing

• Reduced transparency around timelines

For policy analysts, this marks an expansion of governance by memo, rather than regulation.

Connection to the Broader DV Lottery Pause

The memo was issued during a period of heightened scrutiny of the Diversity Visa program.

Major media outlets have reported on DHS-ordered pauses of DV processing, framed around national security concerns.

Coverage includes:
U.S. Homeland Security orders pause of DV visa program — Reuters

This context matters. PM-602-0193 operationalizes that broader pause inside USCIS, specifically targeting adjustment cases already filed.

Why Fiscal Timing Matters More Than Ever

Because Diversity Visa eligibility expires annually:

• A “temporary” hold can eliminate eligibility permanently

• Applicants have no statutory right to extension

• Courts have historically been reluctant to order visa issuance after deadlines

Visa issuance data and timelines are tracked monthly in the Visa Bulletin:
U.S. Department of State Visa Bulletin

For journalists, this creates a clear story: delay equals loss, even without denial.

Unanswered Questions We Should Be Asking

PM-602-0193 leaves several critical questions unresolved:

• Will USCIS resume DV adjudications before September 30?

• Are approvals being silently queued or substantively reconsidered?

• Will affected applicants receive notice of the hold?

• Is this review targeted by nationality, region, or risk profile?

• Could this memo become the basis for litigation?

These gaps make the memo a meaningful subject for oversight, not just immigration reporting.

Legal and Policy Implications

From a legal perspective, PM-602-0193 raises issues involving:

• Administrative Procedure Act concerns over arbitrary delay

• Due process implications for applicants with pending benefits

• Separation between statutory visa allocation and agency discretion

• Use of security rationales without individualized findings

From a policy standpoint, it illustrates how procedural tools can reshape immigration outcomes without legislative change.

Why This Memo Matters Beyond Immigration Law

PM-602-0193 is a case study in modern governance.

It shows how:

• Executive agencies can effectively freeze lawful immigration

• Administrative discretion can override statutory intent

• Time-limited programs are especially vulnerable

• Policy can shift without congressional action or public debate

For immigrants, researchers, advocates, and journalists, this memo is not a footnote. It is a signal.

Is There Data on How Many DV Adjustment of Status Cases Are Being Paused?

Short Answer

There is no single public dataset that explicitly reports how many Adjustment of Status (Form I-485) cases were filed or approved specifically through the Diversity Visa (DV) lottery each year.

However, using official Department of State (DOS) and USCIS data together, we can make credible, defensible estimates that are suitable for journalists and researchers.

What Data the Government Actually Publishes

1. Total Diversity Visas Available Each Year

By statute, the Diversity Visa program allocates up to 55,000 immigrant visas per fiscal year.

Official source:

• U.S. Department of State – Diversity Visa Program Overview

These 55,000 visas include:

• Principal applicants

• Spouses

• Children

They are issued through two channels:

• Consular processing abroad (DOS)

• Adjustment of Status inside the U.S. (USCIS)

2. How Many Diversity Visas Are Actually Issued Each Year

In a typical, uninterrupted year, DOS data shows that nearly all available DV visas are used before September 30.

Examples from historical Visa Office reports:

• FY 2019: ~49,000 DV visas issued

• FY 2022: ~54,000 DV visas issued

• FY 2023: ~55,000 DV visas issued

Official statistics source:

• DOS – Immigrant Visa Statistics (Annual Reports)

This confirms scale, but not the split between consular processing and adjustment of status.

What We Know About DV Adjustment of Status (I-485) Filings

The Key Limitation

Neither USCIS nor DOS publishes a table that says:

“X number of I-485s were filed or approved under the Diversity Visa category.”

That breakdown is not publicly released.

USCIS publishes overall I-485 approval numbers, but does not disaggregate by immigrant category at the public level.

Official USCIS data portal:

• USCIS – Immigration and Citizenship Data

What Can Be Reliably Estimated

How Many DV Applicants Adjust Status in the U.S.?

Based on immigration research, prior litigation records, and USCIS practice patterns:

• A significant minority of DV selectees are already in the U.S.

• These applicants commonly enter as:

  • F-1 students

  • J-1 exchange visitors

  • H-1B workers

  • Other nonimmigrant categories

Conservative estimates used by researchers and litigators place DV-based adjustment of status cases at roughly 10%–30% of all DV visas issued in a normal year.

Using that range:

Fiscal Year	DV Visas Issued	Estimated DV AOS Cases
Typical Year	~55,000	~5,500 to 16,500

This estimate is methodologically conservative and aligns with figures cited in prior DV-related federal court litigation.

How Many DV Adjustment Cases Could Be Affected by the Pause?

Best Evidence-Based Estimate

If USCIS is pausing pending DV adjustment cases under PM-602-0193, the number of affected cases is most plausibly:

• Several thousand

• Potentially over 10,000, depending on:

  • How many applicants filed I-485s early in the fiscal year

  • How many cases remained pending at the time of the memo

  • Whether derivatives (spouses/children) are counted separately

Because DV cases expire at the end of the fiscal year, even a pause affecting “only” a few thousand cases is outcome-determinative.

How This Compares to Other Green Card Categories

For context:

• Diversity Visas represent about 4–5% of all green cards issued annually

• Yet they account for a disproportionately high share of litigation, because:

  • They are time-limited

  • Delay equals permanent loss

  • There is no rollover or recapture mechanism

Contextual source:

• American Immigration Council – Diversity Visa System Fact Sheet

Why the Data Gap Matters

The absence of publicly disaggregated DV adjustment data has consequences:

• USCIS can pause cases without transparent accounting

• Congress lacks visibility into real-world impact

• Courts must rely on estimates and declarations

• Journalists must triangulate data instead of citing a single table

This data opacity is one reason administrative delay has become such a powerful policy tool in the DV context.

Bottom Line

• Up to 55,000 Diversity Visas are available each year

• A meaningful share (roughly 10%–30%) are issued through adjustment of status

• This suggests thousands to potentially low five-figure numbers of DV adjustment cases in a typical year

• A USCIS pause under PM-602-0193 therefore likely affects thousands of pending I-485 cases

• Because DV eligibility expires annually, delay alone can eliminate eligibility, even without denial

The “Silent Denial” Effect: How Administrative Holds Replace Formal Rejection

What makes PM-602-0193 especially powerful is not what it orders—but what it avoids.

USCIS is not denying Diversity Visa adjustment applications.

It is not issuing Requests for Evidence.

It is not revoking approvals.

Instead, it is withholding time.

For Diversity Visa applicants, time is not procedural—it is existential. DV eligibility expires by statute at the end of the fiscal year. When adjudication is paused without an end date, the result can be identical to a denial, but without any of the legal triggers that normally follow a rejection.

This is a pattern immigration lawyers and policy analysts increasingly recognize as “administrative attrition.”

Key characteristics of administrative attrition in DV cases:

• No written denial to challenge

• No appeal rights triggered

• No judicial review easily available

• No individualized findings placed on the record

• No political accountability associated with “ending” the program

From a governance perspective, this is notable. The government achieves a substantive policy outcome—reducing DV green card approvals—without formally changing the law, issuing a rule, or defending a decision in court.

The story is not simply that DV cases are delayed. The story is that delay itself has become the enforcement mechanism.

Why the Diversity Visa Program Is Always the First to Be “Paused”

PM-602-0193 reinforces a long-standing pattern: when administrations want to test restrictive immigration policy with minimal political cost, the Diversity Visa program is often the first target.

There are structural reasons for this.

The DV program is:

• Statutorily capped and time-limited

• Demographically skewed toward underrepresented regions

• Largely invisible to U.S. voters

• Easy to frame through “security” narratives

• Vulnerable to fiscal-year expiration dynamics

Unlike family-based or employment-based immigration, DV beneficiaries typically lack powerful domestic constituencies. There are no major industry lobbies, employer coalitions, or immediate-relative narratives attached.

This makes DV an ideal policy testing ground.

Historically, administrative actions against the DV program have served as policy trial balloons—revealing how far executive discretion can be stretched before courts or Congress intervene.

PM-602-0193 fits squarely into that lineage. It is narrow enough to appear technical, yet broad enough to reshape outcomes at scale.

For policy analysts, this memo should be read less as a one-off instruction and more as a signal of how future immigration restrictions may be deployed across other lawful pathways.

Writ of Mandamus After USCIS Halted Adjustment of Status for DV Lottery Winners: What Are the Real Chances of Success?

The recent USCIS directive pausing or refusing to adjudicate Adjustment of Status (AOS) applications for Diversity Visa (DV) lottery winners has placed thousands of lawful applicants in legal limbo. Unlike many other immigration categories, DV cases are governed by hard statutory deadlines, making delay uniquely devastating.

This raises a critical legal question:

Can a writ of mandamus force USCIS to adjudicate DV-based adjustment cases despite the pause—and is it likely to succeed?

Why DV Lottery AOS Cases Are Different (and Stronger for Mandamus)

DV-based adjustment cases occupy a special legal category that courts have repeatedly treated differently from discretionary immigration benefits.

Key differences:

• Diversity Visas are numerically capped and time-limited by statute
• Unused DV numbers expire at the end of the fiscal year
• Delay does not merely inconvenience applicants—it permanently destroys eligibility

In short, delay equals denial in DV cases.

That distinction matters enormously in mandamus litigation.

For background:
Writ of Mandamus in Immigration Cases Explained

What the New USCIS Memo Does to DV Adjustment Cases

Under the recent USCIS guidance, adjudicators have been instructed to pause or stop adjudicating certain Adjustment of Status applications, including DV lottery-based AOS filings, often without individualized findings.

In practice, DV applicants are seeing:

• AOS cases placed on indefinite hold
•  No interview scheduling
• No RFEs or case movement
• No acknowledgment of fiscal-year deadlines

For DV winners, this is not a neutral pause—it is a de facto elimination of the visa.

Why Mandamus Is Especially Strong for DV AOS Plaintiffs

1. USCIS Has a Clear, Non-Discretionary Duty to Act Before the Fiscal-Year Deadline

Courts have consistently recognized that when Congress imposes a deadline, agencies cannot nullify it through inaction.

USCIS may retain discretion over how to adjudicate a DV AOS case—but not whether to adjudicate it before the visa number expires.

Mandamus arguments are strongest where:

• The application is complete
• A visa number is available
• USCIS delay will cause permanent loss of eligibility

This is precisely the DV scenario.

2. Indefinite Pauses Are Legally Vulnerable in DV Cases

USCIS now argues that national security or policy directives justify pausing adjudications.

That argument weakens dramatically where:
• The pause has no end date
• No individualized review is occurring
• The delay guarantees statutory harm

Federal courts are far less willing to accept open-ended freezes that erase congressionally created benefits.

3. Courts Have Already Recognized DV Timing as Exceptional

Even outside mandamus, federal courts have repeatedly intervened in DV contexts where agency delay threatened to waste visas.

While mandamus cannot compel approval, it can compel adjudication—which is all DV plaintiffs need to preserve their statutory chance.

This makes DV AOS cases among the strongest mandamus candidates in immigration law.

How USCIS Is Likely to Defend—and How Plaintiffs Counter

USCIS Argument: “We Are Pausing Adjudication Under Policy Authority”

Counter:

Agencies cannot override congressional deadlines through internal memos. A pause that guarantees visa expiration is arbitrary and capricious, and beyond USCIS’s lawful authority.

USCIS Argument: “Adjustment of Status Is Discretionary”

Counter:

Discretion applies to the outcome, not the duty to adjudicate before a statutory deadline. Refusing to act at all is not discretion—it is abdication.

USCIS Argument: “National Security Requires Delay”

Counter:

Courts require individualized justification, not blanket freezes. A categorical hold without case-specific findings is legally vulnerable.

What Mandamus Can Realistically Achieve for DV Winners

A successful mandamus action can:

• Force USCIS to resume adjudication
• Require interview scheduling or waiver decisions
• Compel a final decision before the fiscal-year deadline

Even if the decision is unfavorable, mandamus:

• Ends indefinite limbo
• Preserves judicial review options
•  Prevents silent expiration of visa eligibility

For DV applicants, forcing a decision is often the only meaningful relief.

Timing Matters: When to File Mandamus in DV AOS Cases

Mandamus is strongest when:

• Your DV AOS has been pending for months
• A visa number is current and available
• USCIS has stopped processing with no timeline
• The fiscal-year deadline is approaching

Waiting too long can eliminate the remedy altogether.

Related guidance:
Immigration Mandamus Lawsuits: Why They Work

Bottom Line for DV Lottery Winners

For Diversity Visa winners, delay is not neutral—it is fatal.

When USCIS pauses DV-based adjustment cases under internal policy, a writ of mandamus becomes one of the few remaining tools capable of preserving Congress’s intent and the applicant’s lawful opportunity.

Mandamus does not guarantee approval.
But for DV AOS cases, it may be the only way to stop the clock from running out.

What PM-602-0193 Tells Us About the Future of Immigration Governance

The most important insight from PM-602-0193 is not about Diversity Visas at all.

It is about how immigration policy is now being made.

This memo illustrates a broader shift away from:

• Notice-and-comment rulemaking

• Transparent eligibility standards

• Publicly articulated enforcement priorities

And toward:

• Internal agency memoranda

• Open-ended discretionary review

• Security-based justifications without metrics

• Policies that operate through delay rather than denial

In practical terms, this means immigration outcomes are increasingly shaped by internal process choices, not statutory criteria.

For researchers, PM-602-0193 is a case study in how administrative law functions when agencies rely on opacity rather than regulation.

For journalists, it is a reminder that the most consequential immigration decisions may now occur outside press conferences, Federal Register notices, or court rulings—quietly, through operational guidance.

And for the public, it raises a fundamental question:

If lawful immigration benefits can be nullified through delay alone, what does “eligibility” actually mean?

Frequently Asked Questions: USCIS Memo PM-602-0193 and the Future of the Diversity Visa Program

What is USCIS Memo PM-602-0193, in plain language?

USCIS Memo PM-602-0193 instructs immigration officers to pause and re-review certain green card applications filed by Diversity Visa (DV) lottery winners who are already in the United States.

Instead of approving or denying these applications, USCIS is holding them indefinitely for additional review, without providing a timeline, deadline, or clear criteria for when processing will resume.

Does PM-602-0193 cancel the Diversity Visa program?

No. The Diversity Visa program still exists in statute and has not been repealed by Congress.

However, administrative holds can effectively eliminate outcomes without formally ending the program. Because Diversity Visas expire at the end of each fiscal year, delays alone can prevent eligible applicants from receiving green cards.

This is why critics describe the memo as creating a “silent denial” effect.

Who is most directly affected by this memo?

The memo primarily affects:

• Diversity Visa lottery winners already inside the U.S.

• Applicants who filed Form I-485 (Adjustment of Status)

• Applicants who may have already completed interviews

• Applicants awaiting final approval before fiscal-year deadlines

Consular applicants abroad are not directly covered by this memo, but may be indirectly affected by broader DV processing pauses.

Why are Diversity Visa cases uniquely vulnerable to delays?

Unlike most other green card categories, Diversity Visas are:

• Time-limited by statute

• Capped annually

• Non-renewable

• Non-transferable to future fiscal years

If USCIS does not approve a DV case by September 30, the applicant permanently loses eligibility—regardless of merit or compliance.

This makes administrative delay far more consequential for DV applicants than for family- or employment-based applicants.

Why didn’t USCIS just deny these applications if there are concerns?

Because denial triggers legal consequences.

A formal denial can:

• Be appealed or challenged in court

• Require articulated reasons

• Create a record for judicial review

• Attract public and congressional scrutiny

A hold, by contrast:

• Produces no appealable decision

• Avoids judicial review

• Leaves applicants in legal limbo

• Shifts the outcome burden onto time itself

From a governance standpoint, delay is a lower-risk enforcement tool.

Is this kind of “hold and review” approach new?

No. What is new is how frequently and broadly it is being used.

USCIS has increasingly relied on internal memoranda—rather than formal rulemaking—to pause or slow entire categories of lawful immigration benefits.

PM-602-0193 follows a pattern of administrative actions that use process control rather than statutory change to shape immigration outcomes.

How does this memo relate to Project 2025?

The memo closely aligns with policy themes advanced in Project 2025, a comprehensive transition blueprint developed by conservative policy organizations for a future Republican administration.

Project 2025 explicitly calls for:

• Narrowing or eliminating the Diversity Visa program

• Expanding executive control over immigration adjudications

• Using national security rationales to restrict lawful immigration pathways

• Reducing discretionary humanitarian and diversity-based immigration

PM-602-0193 does not cite Project 2025 by name, but its operational logic mirrors Project 2025’s recommendations: restrict outcomes through administrative mechanisms rather than legislation.

What role does Stephen Miller play in shaping policies like this?

Stephen Miller, a key architect of restrictive immigration policy during the Trump administration, has long argued that the Diversity Visa program poses national security risks and should be eliminated or curtailed.

Miller has publicly advocated for:

• Ending the Diversity Visa lottery

• Expanding discretionary vetting

• Using executive authority to reduce lawful immigration

• Reframing immigration policy around security and “merit”

PM-602-0193 reflects many of the same ideas—particularly the use of security-based review without individualized findings.

Is PM-602-0193 connected to recent political or security events?

Yes. The memo was issued during a period of heightened political focus on immigration following high-profile violent incidents, which were publicly cited by DHS officials and media coverage as justification for reviewing immigration programs.

Historically, isolated crimes have often been used as pretext to justify broad immigration restrictions, even when there is no demonstrated link between the program and the incident.

This pattern is explicitly discussed in Project 2025 and echoed in public statements by immigration hardliners.

Does this memo target specific nationalities or regions?

The memo itself does not list specific countries.

However, because the Diversity Visa program disproportionately benefits applicants from Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and parts of Central Asia, the impact is uneven by design, even if not stated explicitly.

This raises concerns among researchers about de facto nationality-based effects.

Can affected applicants challenge this memo in court?

Challenging delays is significantly harder than challenging denials.

Courts often defer to agencies on processing timelines unless delays are extreme or clearly arbitrary. Because PM-602-0193 provides no timeline at all, litigation would likely focus on:

• Administrative Procedure Act claims

• Unreasonable delay arguments

• Equal protection or due process theories

• Whether USCIS is acting ultra vires (beyond authority)

These cases are complex and uncertain.

Is Congress involved or aware of this memo?

At present, PM-602-0193 appears to be an internal executive action, not the result of congressional legislation or oversight hearings.

This reflects a broader trend in which immigration policy is increasingly shaped through agency memoranda rather than democratic processes.

What does this memo signal about the future of legal immigration?

PM-602-0193 suggests a future in which:

• Lawful immigration pathways exist on paper but are constrained in practice

• Eligibility is increasingly conditional on discretionary review

• Time and delay become enforcement mechanisms

• Policy shifts occur quietly, without formal announcements

For analysts, this memo is less about Diversity Visas and more about how immigration governance now operates.

Can Diversity Visa applicants sue USCIS over PM-602-0193?

Potentially, yes—but how matters more than whether.

Because PM-602-0193 does not deny applications outright, most challenges would not be traditional appeals of a denial. Instead, litigation would likely focus on unlawful delay, abuse of discretion, or agency action unlawfully withheld.

The most common federal court pathways include:

• Mandamus actions

• Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims

• Declaratory and injunctive relief

• Constitutional due process claims

Each approach carries different risks and burdens.

What is a mandamus lawsuit, and how does it apply here?

A writ of mandamus is a federal court action asking a judge to compel a government agency to perform a duty it is legally required to perform.

In the immigration context, mandamus lawsuits are often used to challenge unreasonable delays in adjudicating applications.

In PM-602-0193 cases, a mandamus claim would argue that:

• USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate properly filed I-485 applications

• An indefinite hold without timeline constitutes unreasonable delay

• Delay is especially harmful where statutory deadlines (September 30) eliminate eligibility

Mandamus does not require proving entitlement to approval—only that the agency must act.

Are mandamus lawsuits harder in Diversity Visa cases?

Yes—and no.

They are harder because:

• Courts often defer to agencies on processing priorities

• USCIS will argue national security discretion

• PM-602-0193 frames the delay as “review,” not refusal

They are stronger because:

• Diversity Visas expire by statute

• Delay alone can permanently extinguish eligibility

• Courts have recognized that time-limited benefits heighten harm

• USCIS created the risk through policy choice, not workload

The fiscal-year deadline makes DV mandamus claims factually distinct from most delay cases.

What is the role of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)?

The Administrative Procedure Act is often more powerful than mandamus.

Under the APA, plaintiffs may argue that USCIS:

• Has unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed agency action

• Acted in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious

• Failed to provide a reasoned explanation for policy impact

• Effectively changed substantive outcomes without rulemaking

APA claims allow courts to review process and rationale, not just timing.

In PM-602-0193 cases, APA arguments would focus on indefinite delay as policy, not mere backlog.

Can courts order USCIS to approve Diversity Visa cases?

Usually, no.

Courts are generally reluctant to:

• Order approval of immigration benefits

• Substitute judgment for agency discretion

However, courts can:

• Order USCIS to adjudicate cases

• Set deadlines for action

• Prohibit agencies from relying on unlawful delay

• Require explanation or individualized review

In DV cases, forcing adjudication before September 30 may be outcome-determinative.

Has federal litigation ever succeeded in Diversity Visa delay cases?

Yes—though outcomes are mixed.

During prior DV suspensions and processing freezes, federal courts have:

• Ordered agencies to reserve visa numbers

• Required adjudication under court-imposed timelines

• Criticized blanket delays without individualized review

However, courts have also declined relief where plaintiffs filed too late or failed to show clear entitlement.

Timing and factual framing are critical.

Does PM-602-0193 create a stronger litigation record than past DV pauses?

Arguably, yes.

PM-602-0193 is:

• A written, centralized policy directive

• Explicitly ordering holds rather than passive delay

• Issued without timelines or metrics

• Applied broadly rather than case-by-case

This makes it easier to argue policy-level harm, not just bureaucratic inertia.

For litigators, this memo creates a clean administrative record.

Could plaintiffs argue constitutional violations?

Possibly, though these claims are challenging.

Potential constitutional arguments include:

• Procedural due process (indefinite deprivation of a statutory benefit without process)

• Equal protection (disparate impact on certain nationalities or regions)

• Separation of powers (executive nullifying congressionally created visa categories)

Courts often avoid constitutional rulings if APA relief is available, but these claims can strengthen injunction requests.

Does Project 2025 matter in litigation over this memo?

Yes, as context, not as controlling law.

Policy proposals in Project 2025 explicitly call for:

• Curtailing or eliminating the Diversity Visa program

• Expanding executive discretion over lawful immigration

• Using security rationales to restrict visa issuance

• Achieving outcomes administratively when legislation is unavailable

Plaintiffs may cite Project 2025 to argue that PM-602-0193 is pretextual—a policy-driven restriction disguised as neutral review.

Courts may consider this in evaluating agency motive and arbitrariness.

How does Stephen Miller’s policy influence factor into legal analysis?

Stephen Miller has been a central architect of prior efforts to end or limit the Diversity Visa program through executive action.

While Miller is not a party to the memo, his long-standing public advocacy for eliminating the DV program may be relevant to:

• Understanding the ideological framework behind policy choices

• Demonstrating continuity of intent across administrations

• Supporting arguments that delay is being used as a substitute for repeal

This context is especially relevant in APA claims alleging bad faith or pretext.

When should DV applicants consider filing suit?

Timing is everything.

Mandamus and APA cases are strongest when:

• Applications have been pending for many months

• USCIS has provided no individualized explanation

• The fiscal year is nearing its end

• The applicant has complied with all requirements

• Delay threatens irreversible loss of eligibility

Waiting until late September significantly weakens claims.

Could courts consolidate DV cases into class actions?

Possibly.

Because PM-602-0193 applies broadly, plaintiffs may seek:

• Class certification

• Nationwide injunctions

• Relief tied to policy rather than individual facts

However, class actions face higher procedural hurdles and longer timelines.

Some litigators may prefer strategic individual or small-group cases filed early.

What is the broader significance of litigation over PM-602-0193?

Litigation over this memo is not just about Diversity Visas.

It will test whether:

• Agencies can nullify statutory programs through delay

• Courts will tolerate indefinite “review” without standards

• Time-limited benefits receive heightened protection

• Administrative discretion has meaningful limits

For scholars and journalists, these cases may become leading examples of modern immigration governance through attrition.

Why is this memo likely to generate federal court challenges?

Because it combines three litigation-triggering features:

1. High individual stakes (permanent loss of eligibility)

2. Clear administrative action (written hold directive)

3. No internal remedy or timeline

This combination historically produces lawsuits.

Why should we all pay attention to this memo?

Because it illustrates how major immigration outcomes can be altered without changing the law.

PM-602-0193 is:

• A case study in executive power

• A warning sign for other immigration categories

• A test of how far administrative discretion can go

• A preview of policies envisioned under Project 2025

It is precisely the kind of document that reshapes lives while avoiding headlines.

What should Diversity Visa applicants be watching next?

Key indicators include:

• Whether USCIS resumes DV adjudications before September 30

• Whether additional guidance or clarifications are issued

• Whether similar holds are applied to other benefit categories

• Whether litigation or congressional inquiry emerges

Until then, affected applicants remain in procedural limbo.

What to Do If Your Diversity Visa Adjustment Case Is Now on Hold

If you are a Diversity Visa lottery winner with a pending Adjustment of Status (Form I-485) and your case has stalled following USCIS Memo PM-602-0193, time is not neutral — it is decisive.

Unlike most green card categories, Diversity Visa eligibility expires by statute at the end of the fiscal year. An indefinite “hold” can permanently erase eligibility even if your application is otherwise approvable.

That is why early legal strategy matters.

At Herman Legal Group, we are closely tracking PM-602-0193, related USCIS hold-and-review memos, and emerging federal court litigation options, including:

• Mandamus lawsuits for unreasonable delay

• Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges

• Fiscal-year deadline litigation strategies

• Individualized review and record-building before denial by attrition

If your DV adjustment application is delayed, paused, or marked “under review,” a targeted legal analysis now may determine whether your case can still be adjudicated before eligibility expires.

👉 Request a confidential consultation with an experienced immigration attorney to evaluate your options, timelines, and litigation risk before September 30:
Schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group

This consultation is especially important if:

• Your DV case has been pending for months

• You have completed your interview but received no decision

• USCIS has stopped updating your case status

• You are approaching the fiscal-year deadline

• You are considering mandamus or federal court action

Administrative delay is now immigration policy.

The question is whether you will let time decide your case — or act while legal options still exist.

Resource Directory: USCIS Memo PM-602-0193, Diversity Visa Holds, Litigation, and Policy Context

Primary Government Sources (Authoritative)

• USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0193 (PDF): Hold and Review of Pending Adjustment Applications Filed Under the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program

• USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192 (PDF): Pending Applications from Designated Countries – Hold and Review Framework

• USCIS: Green Card Through the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program

• USCIS: Immigration and Citizenship Data (Reports and Statistics)

Department of State (DV Deadlines, Instructions, Visa Caps)

• U.S. Department of State: Diversity Visa Program Overview

• U.S. Department of State: Diversity Visa Instructions

• U.S. Department of State: Visa Bulletin (Monthly Visa Availability)

Federal Court and Delay Litigation Resources

• Herman Legal Group: Writs of Mandamus in Immigration Cases

• Herman Legal Group: Federal Court Lawsuits Against USCIS (Mandamus & APA Delay Cases)

• USCIS: Case Processing Times Tool

• USCIS: Case Inquiry for Outside Normal Processing Times

Major Media Coverage and Breaking Context

• Reuters: U.S. Homeland Security Orders Pause of DV Visa Program

• Associated Press: Diversity Visa Program Paused After Brown University Shooting

• The Guardian: Trump Suspends Green Card Lottery

• Washington Post: Trump Administration Suspends Green Card Lottery

Project 2025 and Stephen Miller Policy Framework

• Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership (Full Policy Document)

• American Immigration Council: What Project 2025 Says About Immigration Policy

• FactCheck.org: A Guide to Project 2025

• Niskanen Center: Project 2025 and Immigration Policy Implications

• Forbes: Trump–Stephen Miller Immigration Strategy and Policy Direction

Herman Legal Group Reference Library

Diversity Visa delays and administrative shutdowns

• Trump Suspends the Green Card Lottery: What the DV Pause Means

• Why the Delay in the DV-2027 Green Card Lottery

• DV-2027 Green Card Lottery Delay: Politics and Policy

• DV-2027 Green Card Lottery Live Tracker and Updates

Psychological and human impact of immigration delays

• Psychological Effects of Immigration Waiting and Legal Uncertainty

• Mental Health Crisis Linked to Immigration Enforcement and ICE Raids

• Immigration Fear and Stress Among U.S.-Born Children

• Psychological Evaluations for Immigration Hardship and Federal Court Cases