Updated June 2026

Quick Answer

Beginning May 18, 2026, USCIS generally requires attorneys and accredited representatives to appear in person at adjustment of status interviews, naturalization interviews, affirmative asylum interviews, and certain NACARA interviews.

The new USCIS attorney interview policy is expected to impact many applicants.

Although immigrants continue to have the right to legal representation, the new policy significantly limits remote attorney participation and may increase costs for applicants who rely on counsel located outside their state. Understanding the USCIS attorney interview policy is crucial for navigating these changes.

The policy appears in USCIS guidance on Preparing for Your Affirmative Asylum Interview.

Key Takeaways

• USCIS generally no longer permits telephonic attorney participation in covered interviews.
• Attorneys must typically appear physically at the interview location.
• USCIS states that exceptions may exist in “limited circumstances,” but has not clearly defined those circumstances.
• The policy may increase legal fees and travel costs for immigrants.Overall, the USCIS attorney interview policy aims to streamline interview processes but raises concerns among immigrant communities.
• The change may reduce access to specialized immigration counsel.
• Federal regulations continue to recognize the right to representation before DHS.
• The policy appears difficult to justify from an efficiency and modernization perspective.
• Critics argue that the policy reflects a broader trend toward increasing procedural burdens in immigration adjudications.

 

What Exactly Changed?

USCIS now generally requires attorneys and accredited representatives to attend covered interviews in person.

The policy affects:

Adjustment of Status Interviews

Including:

• marriage-based green cards;
• family-sponsored green cards;
• employment-based green cards;
• diversity visa adjustment cases.

Naturalization Interviews

Including N-400 examinations involving:

• criminal history issues;
• selective service concerns;
• false claims to U.S. citizenship;
• unlawful voting allegations;
• lengthy absences from the United States.

Affirmative Asylum Interviews

The policy applies to interviews conducted by USCIS asylum offices.

NACARA Interviews

The policy also extends to certain NACARA proceedings.

USCIS announced the change without publishing a detailed explanation of what constitutes the “limited circumstances” under which remote participation may still be permitted.

What Has Not Changed?

Many reports incorrectly suggest that USCIS has prohibited attorneys from participating in interviews.

That is not accurate.

Applicants still have the right to legal representation.

Attorneys may still:

• file Form G-28;
• receive notices;
• prepare clients;
• submit evidence;
• attend interviews;
• raise legal concerns;
• advocate on behalf of clients.

The change concerns the method of participation.

In most cases, USCIS now requires physical attendance rather than telephonic participation.

What Are the “Limited Circumstances” Exceptions?

One of the most significant unanswered questions surrounding the new USCIS policy is the meaning of the phrase “limited circumstances.”

USCIS has announced that attorneys and accredited representatives generally may not participate remotely in covered interviews, but the agency has not publicly defined:

• what qualifies as a limited circumstance;
• how requests should be submitted;
• what evidence should accompany a request;
• who makes the decision;
• whether denials may be appealed;
• whether different field offices may apply different standards.

As of this writing, USCIS has provided little public guidance.

That uncertainty leaves applicants and attorneys attempting to predict what situations might justify an exception.

Circumstances That May Support a Remote Participation Request

Although USCIS has not established formal criteria, several situations appear likely to present stronger arguments.

Serious Medical Issues

An attorney suffering from a significant medical condition may have a compelling basis for requesting remote participation.

Examples may include:

• recent surgery;
• hospitalization;
• serious illness;
• physician-imposed travel restrictions;
• immunocompromised conditions.

Supporting documentation from a treating physician may strengthen the request.

Disability Accommodations

Attorneys with disabilities that substantially impair travel may have a strong argument for remote participation.

Potential examples include:

• mobility impairments;
• chronic medical conditions;
• disabilities requiring specialized accommodations.

Documentation supporting the accommodation request may be helpful.

Extraordinary Travel Burdens

The strongest practical arguments may arise where physical attendance would impose unusual burdens.

Examples might include:

• cross-country travel;
• international travel complications;
• severe weather disruptions;
• transportation emergencies;
• natural disasters.

While distance alone may not be sufficient, extraordinary travel obstacles could support an exception request.

Specialized Counsel in High-Stakes Cases

Another potential argument involves highly specialized representation.

Examples may include:

• EB-1A Extraordinary Ability cases;
• National Interest Waiver matters;
• denaturalization concerns;
• false claim to citizenship allegations;
• unlawful voting allegations;
• national security issues;
• complex asylum claims.

Applicants may argue that requiring physical attendance would effectively deprive them of meaningful access to the counsel they selected.

Whether USCIS will accept this argument remains unclear.

Asylum Cases Involving Vulnerable Applicants

Certain affirmative asylum cases may present compelling circumstances.

Examples could include:

• severe trauma;
• mental health conditions;
• interpreter complications;
• vulnerable populations;
• unusually complex evidentiary issues.

Attorneys may argue that remote participation would facilitate a fair and accurate interview without creating administrative burdens.

Emergencies Arising After Scheduling

Unexpected events occurring shortly before an interview may also justify a request.

Examples include:

• family emergencies;
• sudden illness;
• cancelled flights;
• natural disasters;
• transportation failures.

In these situations, remote participation may be preferable to cancelling and rescheduling the interview.

 

How Should Attorneys Request an Exception?

Because USCIS has not published a formal procedure, practitioners should consider creating a clear written record.

Submit the Request Early

Do not wait until the day of the interview.

Whenever possible, submit the request immediately after receiving the interview notice.

Early requests demonstrate good faith and provide USCIS time to evaluate the circumstances.

Make the Request in Writing

A written request creates documentation that may later become important.

The request should:

• identify the applicant;
• identify the attorney;
• provide the interview date and location;
• explain the specific circumstances;
• explain why remote participation is requested;
• attach supporting evidence where appropriate.

Emphasize Efficiency

This point may be particularly persuasive.

The request should explain that remote participation:

• avoids unnecessary delay;
• prevents rescheduling;
• conserves government resources;
• reduces costs;
• facilitates representation.

If remote participation would allow the interview to proceed as scheduled, that fact should be highlighted.

Cite Representation Rights

Although the new policy generally requires physical attendance, attorneys may wish to reference:

• 8 CFR § 292.5;
• 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).

The purpose is not to challenge USCIS authority but to emphasize the longstanding importance of meaningful attorney participation.

Offer Alternative Formats

Do not limit the request to telephone participation.

Consider offering:

• telephone appearance;
• video appearance;
• Microsoft Teams;
• Webex;
• any platform acceptable to USCIS.

Flexibility may increase the likelihood of approval.

What If USCIS Denies the Request?

If USCIS denies remote participation, attorneys should consider preserving the issue.

Potential steps may include:

• retaining copies of all requests;
• documenting communications with USCIS;
• documenting costs associated with compliance;
• documenting any hardship imposed on the applicant.

This documentation may become important if future litigation challenges the policy or if USCIS later publishes additional guidance.

Richard Herman’s Analysis

The phrase “limited circumstances” may ultimately become the most important part of the entire policy.

A rigid interpretation could dramatically increase costs and reduce access to counsel.

A flexible interpretation could preserve many of the benefits of remote participation while still allowing USCIS discretion in individual cases.

Until USCIS publishes clear standards, applicants and attorneys should assume that remote participation will be the exception rather than the rule and should submit any exception requests as early and as thoroughly as possible.

The reality is that the strongest exception requests will likely be those that demonstrate both hardship and efficiency—showing not only why physical attendance is difficult, but also why remote participation would allow USCIS to conduct the interview fairly, accurately, and without unnecessary delay.

 

Immigration Law Has Long Recognized the Importance of Legal Representation

The significance of the policy becomes clearer when viewed against the legal framework governing representation before DHS.

Federal Regulations Protect Representation Rights

The foundational regulation is 8 CFR § 292.5(b).

The regulation provides:

Whenever an examination is provided for in this chapter, the person involved shall have the right to be represented by an attorney or representative.

Importantly, the regulation contemplates active participation by counsel.

Attorneys may:

• introduce evidence;
• make objections;
• examine witnesses;
• cross-examine witnesses;
• submit briefs.

This is not the language of a system that views attorneys as passive observers.

It is the language of a system that recognizes representation as an important procedural safeguard.

Another key regulation is 8 CFR § 292.1, which identifies the attorneys and accredited representatives authorized to appear before DHS.

USCIS Built an Entire System Around Attorney Representation

USCIS has long recognized the importance of legal representation through Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative.

The agency’s representation framework assumes that attorneys play a meaningful role in helping applicants navigate increasingly complex immigration laws.

Whether the case involves:

• adjustment of status;
• naturalization;
• asylum;
• waivers;
• humanitarian relief;

USCIS has historically facilitated attorney participation rather than discouraged it.

An Important Historical Fact Most Commentators Have Missed

One of the most overlooked aspects of this story is that USCIS previously moved in the opposite direction.

In 2022, USCIS implemented a pilot program allowing remote attorney participation in asylum interviews.

The agency’s pilot documentation remains publicly available through the USCIS Remote Attorney Participation Pilot Program.

The pilot explicitly recognized that asylum applicants have the right to have an attorney present at their interviews.

This creates an obvious question:

If remote participation was sufficiently beneficial to justify a USCIS pilot program in 2022, what evidence now justifies eliminating it in 2026?

To date, USCIS has not publicly provided a detailed explanation.

The Board of Immigration Appeals Has Long Recognized That Attorneys Matter

Immigration law contains an entire body of precedent recognizing the importance of competent legal representation.

The leading case is Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).

Lozada established the framework for reopening immigration cases based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

The significance of Lozada extends far beyond motions to reopen.

The case reflects a broader principle:

Attorney performance affects immigration outcomes.

If legal representation did not matter, immigration courts would have little reason to reopen cases because of attorney misconduct or attorney error.

The existence of ineffective-assistance doctrines demonstrates that immigration law recognizes counsel as a meaningful safeguard against erroneous outcomes.

Federal Administrative Law Also Protects Representation

The principle extends beyond immigration law.

The Administrative Procedure Act recognizes representation rights before federal agencies.

See 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).

For decades, federal administrative law has recognized that legal representation helps promote:

• fairness;
• accuracy;
• procedural integrity;
• informed decision-making.

This broader administrative-law framework reinforces the importance of access to counsel in immigration adjudications.

The Real Issue Is Not Whether Representation Exists

Supporters of the policy may correctly note that immigrants still possess the right to counsel.

The more important question is different:

How meaningful is a right if exercising it becomes substantially more expensive?

The policy does not eliminate representation.

It increases the burden of obtaining representation.

That distinction matters.

The Financial Burden Falls on Immigrants

The most immediate effect of the policy is financial.

Before the policy:

• attorney preparation could occur remotely;
• attorney participation could occur telephonically;
• travel expenses were unnecessary.

After the policy:

Applicants may be responsible for:

• airfare;
• hotels;
• transportation;
• meals;
• attorney travel time;
• additional legal fees.

A single interview may now generate hundreds or even thousands of dollars in additional expenses.

Consider a client in Ohio represented by an attorney in California.

Previously, the attorney could prepare the client remotely and attend by telephone.

Now the client may be required to cover:

• round-trip airfare;
• overnight accommodations;
• local transportation;
• attorney travel time.

For many families, the additional cost may be significant.

For some, it may be prohibitive.

The Policy Reduces Access to Specialized Counsel

Modern immigration practice has become highly specialized.

Many attorneys focus almost exclusively on:

• EB-1A extraordinary ability petitions;
• National Interest Waivers;
• complex asylum cases;
• inadmissibility waivers;
• denaturalization defense;
• false claims to citizenship;
• unlawful voting allegations.

Remote participation allowed applicants to retain the attorney they believed was best qualified, regardless of location.

The new policy may force applicants to choose between:

• specialized counsel located elsewhere; or
• local counsel who can attend without substantial travel expenses.

For many immigrants, that is a significant change.

Lower-Income Immigrants May Be Affected Most

The burden is unlikely to fall equally.

Wealthier applicants may absorb the added costs.

Middle-income families may struggle but proceed.

Many lower-income immigrants may simply decide they cannot afford attorney attendance.

This creates an access-to-justice concern.

The right technically remains available.

The practical ability to exercise that right becomes more difficult.

Why Asylum Cases Raise Special Concerns

The impact may be particularly significant in affirmative asylum cases.

Asylum interviews frequently involve:

• trauma survivors;
• language barriers;
• credibility determinations;
• complex country-condition evidence;
• vulnerable applicants.

Attorneys often help:

• clarify misunderstandings;
• ensure accurate interpretation;
• organize evidence;
• protect procedural fairness.

Many asylum applicants rely on nonprofit organizations and pro bono counsel operating under limited budgets.

Requiring physical attendance may force some organizations to reduce participation because of travel costs and staffing limitations.

The Efficiency Problem

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the policy is that it appears difficult to justify from an efficiency perspective.

For decades, government agencies have embraced technology to reduce costs and improve access.

Federal courts routinely conduct proceedings remotely.

Immigration courts increasingly utilize video technology.

USCIS encourages:

• online filing;
• electronic communication;
• digital case management.

Telephonic attorney appearances generally:

• reduce travel costs;
• improve scheduling flexibility;
• increase access to counsel;
• conserve resources;
• reduce barriers to representation.

The new policy eliminates many of those benefits.

A Policy That Increases Costs for Everyone

The policy shifts costs from the government to applicants.

Instead of a lawyer participating by telephone, clients may now pay for:

• airfare;
• hotel expenses;
• transportation costs;
• attorney travel time.

The policy also imposes costs on attorneys.

A lawyer who previously devoted one hour to a telephonic interview may now spend an entire day traveling.

Those hours cannot be spent:

• meeting clients;
• preparing cases;
• attending hearings;
• filing motions.

Those costs are often reflected in legal fees.

USCIS May Also Lose Efficiency

Experienced attorneys often make interviews more efficient.

Counsel frequently helps:

• organize evidence;
• narrow issues;
• explain legal questions;
• prevent misunderstandings;
• facilitate communication.

When counsel cannot attend because travel costs are prohibitive, officers may spend more time addressing confusion, requesting additional evidence, or conducting follow-up review.

The policy may therefore increase administrative burdens rather than reduce them.

What Problem Is USCIS Trying to Solve?

A fair question remains unanswered.

USCIS has not publicly identified evidence demonstrating that telephonic attorney participation was causing:

• fraud;
• attorney misconduct;
• operational failures;
• significant delays;
• reduced adjudicative quality.

Without a clearly articulated problem, critics may reasonably ask why the agency chose to impose additional costs and burdens on applicants.

Is This Part of a Larger Trend?

Viewed in isolation, the policy may appear minor.

Viewed alongside other recent developments—including expanded vetting, increased scrutiny of immigration benefits, heightened fraud investigations, and broader discretionary review frameworks—some observers see a larger pattern.

The telephonic-attendance policy does not eliminate any legal right.

But it arguably increases the burden of exercising one.

Critics contend that the cumulative effect of these policies is to make immigration benefits more expensive, more procedurally demanding, and more difficult to obtain.

Richard Herman’s Analysis

The most important question is not whether immigrants still have the right to legal representation.

They do.

The more important question is whether that right remains meaningfully accessible.

For decades, Congress, DHS regulations, USCIS procedures, federal administrative law, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and federal courts have all recognized that attorneys help protect against governmental error.

Technology made it possible for immigrants to access qualified counsel regardless of geography.

The new USCIS policy moves against that trend.

It increases costs.

It increases barriers.

It reduces flexibility.

And it may make specialized representation more difficult to obtain.

For some applicants, the change will be inconvenient.

For others, it may determine whether an attorney is physically present during one of the most important interactions they will ever have with the federal government.

Ultimately, the debate is not about whether the right to counsel still exists.

The debate is about whether meaningful access to that right should depend on an immigrant’s ability to pay for an attorney’s airplane ticket.

 

Frequently Asked Questions About USCIS’s New Attorney Attendance Policy

Does USCIS still allow attorneys at immigration interviews?

Yes. USCIS still allows attorneys and accredited representatives to attend immigration interviews. The policy change does not eliminate the right to legal representation. Instead, USCIS now generally requires attorneys to appear in person rather than participate remotely.

When did the new USCIS attorney attendance policy take effect?

The policy became effective on May 18, 2026. USCIS announced that attorneys and accredited representatives generally may no longer participate remotely in field office interviews, affirmative asylum interviews, and NACARA interviews except in limited circumstances.

What USCIS interviews are affected by the policy?

The policy generally applies to:

• Adjustment of Status (I-485) interviews;
• Marriage-based green card interviews;
• Employment-based green card interviews;
• Naturalization (N-400) interviews;
• Affirmative asylum interviews;
• Certain NACARA interviews.

Can my immigration attorney still participate by telephone?

Possibly, but only in limited circumstances.

USCIS has stated that exceptions may exist, but the agency has not clearly defined:

• what circumstances qualify;
• how requests should be made;
• what evidence may be required;
• who decides whether an exception is granted.

Can my attorney participate by video instead of appearing in person?

As a general rule, USCIS now requires in-person attendance. Applicants should not assume that video participation will be approved unless USCIS specifically authorizes an exception.

Why is this policy controversial?

Critics argue that the policy:

• increases legal costs;
• reduces access to specialized counsel;
• requires unnecessary travel;
• creates barriers to representation;
• undermines efficiency.

Supporters may argue that in-person participation improves consistency and accountability during interviews.

Does the policy eliminate my right to legal representation?

No.

Federal regulations continue to recognize the right to representation before DHS. Applicants may still hire attorneys and accredited representatives to advise them, prepare their cases, submit evidence, and attend interviews.

What regulation protects the right to legal representation before DHS?

The primary regulation is 8 CFR § 292.5(b), which provides that individuals appearing before DHS generally have the right to be represented by an attorney or accredited representative at no expense to the government.

Why is attorney representation important during USCIS interviews?

Attorneys may help:

• prepare applicants for questioning;
• organize evidence;
• clarify legal issues;
• address misunderstandings;
• protect against inaccurate statements;
• respond to officer concerns;
• identify potential inadmissibility issues.

In complex cases, attorney participation can significantly affect the outcome.

Will this policy increase immigration legal fees?

In many cases, yes.

Applicants may now be responsible for:

• attorney travel time;
• airfare;
• hotel expenses;
• transportation costs;
• additional preparation costs.

For some cases, these expenses may increase the overall cost of representation substantially.

Will the policy affect applicants who hire attorneys in other states?

Yes.

The policy may have the greatest impact on applicants represented by attorneys located outside the state where the interview is scheduled.

Previously, telephonic participation allowed applicants to retain specialized counsel regardless of geography.

Now, applicants may need to consider travel expenses when selecting counsel.

Why does this policy affect access to specialized immigration attorneys?

Many immigration attorneys focus on highly specialized areas such as:

• EB-1A Extraordinary Ability;
• National Interest Waivers;
• asylum law;
• inadmissibility waivers;
• denaturalization defense;
• false claims to citizenship;
• unlawful voting cases.

Because these attorneys often represent clients nationwide, requiring in-person attendance may make specialized representation more expensive or less accessible.

Did USCIS previously allow remote attorney participation?

Yes.

USCIS previously implemented a pilot program permitting remote attorney participation in certain asylum interviews. The existence of that program has led some observers to question why USCIS reversed course in 2026.

Does the policy affect asylum seekers?

Yes.

The policy applies to affirmative asylum interviews conducted by USCIS.

Many immigration advocates are particularly concerned because asylum interviews often involve:

• trauma survivors;
• language barriers;
• credibility determinations;
• vulnerable applicants.

Is the policy part of a broader trend in immigration enforcement?

Some observers believe so.

Critics point to recent developments involving:

• increased vetting;
• heightened fraud investigations;
• expanded discretionary review;
• additional interview scrutiny;
• more demanding adjudication procedures.

Others view the attorney-attendance policy as a routine procedural change.

Could the policy be challenged in court?

Potentially.

Future challenges could focus on:

• administrative law principles;
• agency decision-making;
• access-to-counsel concerns;
• procedural fairness issues.

Whether such challenges will be successful remains uncertain.

Should I hire an attorney for my USCIS interview?

Every case is different.

Attorney representation may be particularly valuable if your case involves:

• criminal history;
• prior immigration violations;
• prior visa denials;
• fraud allegations;
• false claims to citizenship;
• unlawful voting issues;
• inadmissibility concerns;
• asylum claims;
• complex family or employment-based immigration matters.

Applicants facing high-stakes interviews should consider consulting experienced immigration counsel before appearing before USCIS.

Need Help Preparing for a USCIS Interview?

USCIS interviews are becoming more consequential, more discretionary, and more procedurally demanding. If your case involves a green card interview, naturalization interview, asylum interview, prior immigration violations, criminal history, alleged fraud, false claims to citizenship, unlawful voting, or prior denials, experienced legal preparation may be critical.

Herman Legal Group helps immigrants, families, professionals, students, employers, and asylum seekers prepare for high-stakes USCIS interviews nationwide.

To discuss your case, schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group or call 1-800-808-4013.

Resource Directory

Official Government and Legal Authority

• USCIS: Preparing for Your Affirmative Asylum Interview
• USCIS Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance
• 8 CFR § 292.5: Representation and Appearances
• 8 CFR § 292.1: Representation of Others Before DHS
• 5 U.S.C. § 555(b): Administrative Procedure Act Right to Counsel

HLG Resources

• Book a Consultation with Herman Legal Group
• Herman Legal Group Homepage
• Cleveland Immigration Lawyers
• Citizenship and Naturalization Lawyer
• Marriage Green Card 2026 Mega-Guide
• What Happens If Your Adjustment of Status Is Denied?
• Did USCIS Walk Back the I-485 Memo?
• Best Law Firms for Refugee and Asylum Cases
• Media Interview Expert on Immigration