Most adjustment of status applicants focus almost entirely on eligibility.
They ask:
Those questions are important.
But after USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, Adjustment of Status and Discretion, a different question has become increasingly important:
Even if you qualify for a green card, why should USCIS exercise favorable discretion and approve your application?
That question lies at the heart of what immigration lawyers call an Immigration Equities Package—a strategic collection of evidence demonstrating that an applicant deserves a favorable exercise of discretion.
Understanding discretion is the foundation for understanding everything else in this article.
When USCIS issued PM-602-0199 on May 21, 2026, the immigration community reacted immediately.
The memorandum repeatedly described adjustment of status as:
For many immigration lawyers, employers, universities, hospitals, and applicants, the memo appeared to signal a dramatic shift in how adjustment cases might be adjudicated.
Within days, immigration organizations, practitioners, and major media outlets began analyzing the implications.
Some commentators feared USCIS intended to transform adjustment of status from a routine immigration benefit into a much more difficult form of relief.
Others argued the agency was merely restating legal principles that have existed for decades.
As concerns mounted, reports emerged that USCIS officials were attempting to clarify aspects of the policy and reassure stakeholders that adjustment of status remained available for qualified applicants.
The result was what many practitioners now describe as the PM-602-0199 “shockwave” followed by a partial “walk-back.”
Yet regardless of how the policy ultimately develops, one reality remains unchanged:
Discretion is now at the center of the conversation.
Many applicants assume that if they satisfy the legal requirements for adjustment of status, approval should follow automatically.
Immigration law does not work that way.
Eligibility and discretion are different concepts.
Eligibility asks:
These are threshold questions.
An applicant who fails them generally cannot obtain adjustment.
Discretion asks something different:
Assuming the applicant is legally eligible, should USCIS approve the application?
This is where positive and negative factors may come into play.
An applicant may satisfy every statutory requirement and still face questions concerning:
Discretion is not about whether someone qualifies.
It is about whether approval is warranted.
The legal foundation of discretion begins with one word found in INA §245.
Congress did not provide that adjustment applications “shall” be granted.
Instead, Congress provided that the Attorney General (now USCIS and DHS) “may” adjust the status of an eligible applicant.
That distinction is significant.
Throughout American law, courts generally interpret the word “may” as granting decision-makers discretion.
The concept has been recognized repeatedly by immigration courts, federal courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and USCIS itself.
This is why adjustment of status has always been considered a discretionary benefit rather than an entitlement.
The idea did not originate with PM-602-0199.
The memorandum simply brought that reality back to the forefront. It also included no grandfathering provision, so the change could affect already pending cases.
One of the themes emphasized throughout PM-602-0199 is that adjustment of status allows certain applicants to obtain permanent residence without leaving the United States.
Historically, immigrant visas were obtained through a U.S. consulate abroad.
Adjustment of status created a mechanism allowing qualifying applicants already present in the United States to complete the process domestically.
For decades, adjustment became the preferred route for many applicants because it generally offered:
The memorandum’s repeated references to adjustment as “extraordinary relief” triggered concern because many practitioners interpreted that language as suggesting applicants should be required to justify why they should be permitted to adjust in the United States rather than complete processing abroad.
That interpretation became one of the central controversies surrounding the memo.
The concern was not simply academic.
Adjustment of status is the backbone of many immigration categories.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of people rely upon adjustment, including:
Employers build hiring strategies around adjustment.
Hospitals recruit physicians based on adjustment pathways.
Universities depend on adjustment options for researchers and faculty.
Families often structure major life decisions around adjustment eligibility.
Any suggestion that USCIS intended to fundamentally alter adjustment adjudications was bound to create significant concern.
That is precisely what happened.
In the days following publication of the memorandum, reports emerged that USCIS officials were providing additional context regarding the policy.
Many practitioners interpreted those statements as an effort to reassure stakeholders that the agency was not eliminating adjustment of status or requiring mass consular processing.
The practical reality is that the U.S. immigration system depends heavily on adjustment adjudications.
A dramatic reduction in adjustment approvals would create significant consequences for employers, families, universities, healthcare systems, and the broader economy.
As a result, many observers concluded that the initial language of the memorandum may have been broader than the agency ultimately intended to implement.
Whether one views those developments as a clarification or a walk-back, the episode revealed how sensitive adjustment policy has become. The debate centered on a USCIS policy memo that provided internal guidance rather than changing the statute itself.
Many applicants initially focused on the wrong question.
The question is not:
Is adjustment of status disappearing?
The answer is almost certainly no.
The more important question is:
What evidence can I provide to make my case stronger if USCIS is paying greater attention to discretion?
That question leads directly to the concept of an Immigration Equities Package.
The strongest applicants do not simply prove eligibility.
They demonstrate why approval serves:
In other words, they build a record showing why USCIS should say yes. You are investing a lot of money and time in the process. The government filing fee for Adjustment of Status is approximately $1,440. Let’s do it right!
For many years, most adjustment cases focused primarily on eligibility.
The future may look different.
Whether PM-602-0199 ultimately results in major policy changes or merely heightened scrutiny, applicants should expect USCIS officers to pay closer attention to the overall story behind a case.
Two applicants may have identical eligibility.
Yet one may present:
The other may present little beyond the required forms.
If discretion becomes increasingly important, those differences may matter.
That is why the concept of an Immigration Equities Package is likely to become one of the most important immigration strategies of the next several years.
In the next section, we will examine the legal framework behind discretionary decision-making, including INA §245, the USCIS Policy Manual, Matter of Arai, Matter of Marin, Matter of Mendez-Moralez, Patel v. Garland, and the long history of how immigration adjudicators weigh favorable and adverse factors.
Before discussing Immigration Equities Packages, positive factors, or the 100-document checklist, it is important to understand a fundamental reality:
USCIS did not create discretionary authority through PM-602-0199.
The authority to exercise discretion has existed for decades.
The memo did not invent discretion.
Rather, it reminded immigration officers that discretion has always been part of adjustment adjudications.
To understand what USCIS may do in the future, applicants must first understand where discretion comes from and how courts, immigration judges, and the Board of Immigration Appeals have historically analyzed favorable and adverse factors.
Adjustment of status is governed by INA §245 and other applicable federal law.
The critical language appears near the beginning of the statute:
“The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States … may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe…”
The most important word in that sentence is:
“May”
Congress did not say USCIS shall adjust status.
Congress did not say USCIS must adjust status.
Congress said USCIS may adjust status.
That single word creates discretionary authority.
Federal courts have repeatedly recognized that adjustment of status is not an entitlement.
Even when an applicant satisfies all statutory requirements, approval is not automatic.
This principle has existed for generations.
PM-602-0199 merely brought renewed attention to it.
Long before PM-602-0199, USCIS’s own guidance described adjustment as a discretionary benefit.
The USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7, which governs adjustment of status adjudications, states that officers must determine whether applicants merit a favorable exercise of discretion.
The Policy Manual has long instructed officers to evaluate:
In other words:
The concept of weighing equities did not begin in 2026.
It has always existed.
What changed in 2026 was the degree of emphasis USCIS placed upon that authority.
No discussion of adjustment discretion is complete without examining Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970).
Many immigration lawyers consider Arai the foundational adjustment-of-status discretion case.
The Board recognized that adjustment applicants may present favorable factors that support approval even where adverse factors exist.
Arai is important because it established a framework that still influences immigration adjudications today:
Negative factors are not ignored.
Cases should be evaluated holistically rather than mechanically.
This basic balancing approach appears repeatedly throughout later immigration cases.
Arai remains highly relevant because it illustrates that discretion involves more than checking statutory boxes.
It involves evaluating the person behind the application.
Another foundational decision is Matter of Marin, 16 I&N Dec. 581 (BIA 1978).
Although Marin involved suspension of deportation rather than adjustment of status, its balancing framework became one of the most influential concepts in immigration law. USCIS officers consider all relevant factors on a case-by-case basis.
The Board explained that decision-makers should weigh:
against
Examples of favorable factors identified in Marin include:
Examples of adverse factors include:
The balancing methodology from Marin eventually influenced discretionary analysis throughout immigration law.
Even though adjustment cases differ from deportation cases, the underlying principle remains highly relevant:
The stronger the positive equities, the more likely they may offset adverse considerations.
Perhaps the most important discretionary decision for understanding Immigration Equities Packages is Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996).
The case involved a waiver application, but its discussion of discretion has become influential far beyond that context.
Mendez-Moralez identified many factors immigration adjudicators traditionally consider:
The case emphasized individualized review.
No single factor automatically controls.
Instead, adjudicators examine the entire record.
This concept lies at the heart of what an Immigration Equities Package seeks to accomplish.
The modern landscape cannot be understood without discussing Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022).
Patel was one of the most important immigration decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court in recent years.
The Court held that federal courts generally lack jurisdiction to review many factual determinations underlying discretionary adjustment decisions.
The practical consequence was significant.
Historically, applicants often viewed federal court review as an important safeguard.
Patel narrowed that pathway.
When adjustment policy is challenged in court, possible outcomes can still remain uncertain.
Many immigration lawyers interpreted the decision as increasing the practical importance of the USCIS adjudication itself.
If courts have less ability to second-guess discretionary determinations, building the strongest possible administrative record becomes even more important.
That is one reason Immigration Equities Packages may become increasingly valuable.
Many applicants confuse evidence proving eligibility with evidence supporting discretion.
They are not the same.
Examples include:
These documents establish legal qualification.
Examples include:
These documents help answer a different question:
Why should USCIS approve this case?
Both categories matter.
But PM-602-0199 has increased attention on the second category.
One misconception is that USCIS officers use a mathematical formula.
They do not.
There is no point system.
No checklist automatically guarantees approval.
Instead, officers typically evaluate the overall record.
They ask questions such as:
These are inherently discretionary judgments.
That is why two applicants with similar legal eligibility may experience very different outcomes.
Although every case is unique, certain factors repeatedly appear throughout immigration law. Common documentation includes evidence of family ties, community involvement, and employment history.
Among the strongest are:
Particularly involving:
Years of productive residence often carry significant weight.
Consistent work history and tax compliance demonstrate responsibility and contribution. Documentation of U.S. tax compliance strengthens an equities package.
Volunteer work, religious participation, and civic engagement often strengthen discretionary arguments. Community membership can support positive factors in an adjustment application.
Where adverse factors exist, evidence of rehabilitation may become one of the most important components of the case.
Medical issues, disabilities, caregiving responsibilities, and country-condition concerns can all influence discretionary analysis.
For decades, many practitioners discussed Matter of Arai, Matter of Marin, and Matter of Mendez-Moralez primarily in removal cases, waiver cases, and complex discretionary matters.
PM-602-0199 changed that conversation.
Suddenly, thousands of adjustment applicants began asking:
What positive equities should I be presenting?
That question is exactly the right one.
Because whether USCIS ultimately applies the memo aggressively or moderately, the safest strategy remains the same:
Build the strongest record possible.
Do not merely prove eligibility.
Demonstrate why approval serves the interests of:
That is the purpose of an Immigration Equities Package.
And it is why the next section of this guide examines what PM-602-0199 actually changed, what the media reported, what USCIS appears to have clarified afterward, and why the “walk-back” may be just as important as the memo itself.
No immigration policy memorandum in 2026 generated more confusion, anxiety, debate, and media attention than USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199.
Within days of its publication, immigration lawyers, employers, universities, hospitals, advocacy organizations, and applicants were asking the same question:
Did USCIS just make adjustment of status dramatically harder?
The answer is more complicated than many headlines suggested.
To understand why, it is important to examine what the memo actually said, why it triggered such a strong reaction, how USCIS responded to the criticism, and what practical lessons applicants should take away from the controversy.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS released Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, Adjustment of Status and Discretion.
At first glance, the memo appeared relatively short.
Yet several phrases immediately caught the attention of immigration practitioners.
USCIS repeatedly described adjustment of status as:
While those concepts have long existed in immigration law, the tone and emphasis of the memorandum raised concerns that USCIS intended to fundamentally alter how adjustment cases would be adjudicated. The memo did not include a grandfathering provision for already filed I-485 cases, which heightened concern about any new adjustment approach affecting pending applications.
Many attorneys believed the memo went far beyond a simple restatement of existing law.
Instead, it appeared to signal a philosophical shift toward more restrictive adjudications.
Perhaps no phrase generated more controversy than USCIS’s description of adjustment of status as an “extraordinary form” of relief.
For decades, adjustment of status has functioned as one of the primary pathways to lawful permanent residence and a central part of the domestic green card process for applicants already in the United States.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of applicants use adjustment procedures to obtain green cards while remaining in the United States.
These applicants include:
The concern among practitioners was straightforward.
If adjustment truly became “extraordinary relief,” would applicants now be expected to justify why they deserved adjustment rather than immigrant visa processing at a U.S. consulate abroad?
Would officers begin denying cases that historically would have been approved?
Would lawful pathways become less predictable?
Those questions quickly spread throughout the immigration community.
The immigration bar reacted almost immediately.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) criticized portions of the memorandum and warned that its language could create uncertainty for both applicants and adjudicators.
Many practitioners argued that Congress intended adjustment of status to function as a normal statutory mechanism rather than a rare exception.
Others expressed concern that officers could interpret the memorandum inconsistently across field offices.
The fear was not merely theoretical.
Immigration lawyers reported receiving questions from clients who worried that:
For law firms across the country, the volume of inquiries increased almost immediately.
The reaction extended well beyond immigration attorneys.
Major sectors of the American economy depend heavily on adjustment of status.
Hospitals use adjustment pathways to retain physicians.
Universities depend on adjustment options for professors, researchers, and graduate students.
Technology companies rely upon adjustment processing for highly skilled workers.
Businesses use adjustment to retain long-term employees and avoid disruptions caused by international travel and consular delays.
If adjustment became substantially more difficult, the consequences would extend far beyond individual applicants.
Employers understood this immediately.
That is one reason the policy quickly attracted national attention.
The controversy surrounding PM-602-0199 soon moved beyond legal circles.
Major media organizations began reporting on the policy and its potential implications.
Coverage highlighted concerns that USCIS might be attempting to discourage adjustment of status and encourage more applicants to pursue immigrant visa processing abroad.
Several reports quoted immigration lawyers who argued that the memorandum represented one of the most consequential adjustment-of-status developments in years.
Others emphasized the uncertainty surrounding implementation and questioned whether USCIS intended to apply the policy broadly or narrowly.
The resulting coverage brought an issue that might otherwise have remained confined to immigration practitioners into the national spotlight.
As the debate intensified, a practical problem became increasingly obvious.
The American immigration system depends heavily on adjustment of status.
A dramatic reduction in adjustment approvals would affect:
Congress has repeatedly preserved adjustment as a central component of the immigration system.
Adjustment is not a loophole.
Adjustment is not an exception created by agency policy.
Adjustment is a statutory benefit enacted by Congress.
For that reason, many observers believed USCIS would eventually need to clarify how the memorandum would be applied.
Within days of the memorandum’s publication, reports began circulating that USCIS officials were providing additional explanations regarding the policy.
Practitioners across the country reported hearing that:
Some field officers reportedly acknowledged confusion created by the memorandum’s initial language.
Other reports suggested that internal discussions were underway regarding implementation.
Whether one describes these developments as a clarification, modification, recalibration, or walk-back, the practical effect was similar:
The widespread fear that adjustment itself was disappearing began to subside.
Many observers focused on the controversy itself.
The more important issue may be what happened afterward.
The walk-back effectively confirmed several important realities.
Adjustment remains one of the central pillars of the immigration system.
Congress created it.
Employers depend on it.
Families depend on it.
USCIS processes hundreds of thousands of adjustment applications every year.
Nothing that occurred after PM-602-0199 suggests adjustment is disappearing.
Although fears of mass denials appear overstated, the underlying legal principle remains unchanged.
Adjustment is discretionary.
The agency has repeatedly emphasized that point.
The walk-back did not eliminate discretion.
If anything, it reinforced the importance of discretionary analysis.
Perhaps the most significant long-term consequence of PM-602-0199 is that officers have now received an unmistakable reminder regarding discretionary authority.
That reminder may influence:
Even if approval rates remain relatively stable, discretionary reasoning may receive greater attention than in previous years.
Although implementation continues to evolve, many immigration lawyers report several emerging trends.
These include:
Officers appear increasingly interested in understanding prior status compliance, travel history, previous interactions with immigration agencies, and verifying the applicant’s immigration status.
Consistency across forms, interviews, supporting evidence, and prior filings appears increasingly important.
Family circumstances, caregiving responsibilities, medical conditions, and hardship evidence may be receiving greater attention.
Many practitioners have reported spending more time proactively presenting favorable discretionary evidence.
Whether this trend continues remains to be seen.
However, it aligns with the broader emphasis reflected in PM-602-0199.
The lesson from PM-602-0199 is not panic.
The lesson is preparation.
Applicants should avoid two mistakes.
Ignoring the memorandum entirely would be unwise.
USCIS issued it for a reason.
Officers have been instructed to think about discretion.
Applicants should do the same.
The opposite reaction is equally misguided.
The subsequent clarifications strongly suggest that adjustment remains available to qualified applicants.
Most applicants should not assume their cases are doomed.
The better strategy is simple:
Build the strongest case possible.
That means:
The applicants best positioned to succeed under any discretionary framework are those who proactively demonstrate why approval serves the interests of:
That is precisely why Immigration Equities Packages have become such an important topic.
The long-term significance of PM-602-0199 may not be increased denials.
It may be increased documentation.
In the years ahead, successful adjustment cases are likely to look more sophisticated.
Applicants who merely submit the minimum required forms may find themselves at a disadvantage compared to applicants who present a complete narrative supported by extensive evidence of positive equities.
The future of adjustment practice may involve less focus on checking boxes and more focus on telling a compelling story.
That story is built through evidence.
And that evidence is what we call an Immigration Equities Package.
In the next section, we will examine what USCIS officers are most likely looking for when evaluating favorable discretion and identify the specific categories of evidence that carry the greatest weight in adjustment adjudications.
It will answer the practical question that immigrants actually have:
“What positive factors are USCIS officers likely looking for right now?”
If the previous sections of this article established the legal framework behind discretion, this section answers the practical question every applicant is asking:
What does favorable discretion actually look like in a discretionary, multi-step status process?
The truth is that no USCIS officer receives a secret checklist.
There is no publicly available point system.
There is no formula assigning ten points for community service, twenty points for employment history, and thirty points for family ties.
Discretion does not work that way.
Yet after reviewing the USCIS Policy Manual, decades of immigration case law, including Matter of Arai, Matter of Marin, and Matter of Mendez-Moralez, as well as the themes emphasized in PM-602-0199, clear patterns emerge.
The strongest cases are often those that answer a simple question:
Why is approving this application the right decision?
Historically, many adjustment applicants treated the filing as a status application and focused almost exclusively on proving eligibility, rather than building the discretionary narrative that explains why approval is warranted.
They submitted:
Those documents remain essential.
However, they typically answer only one question:
Can this person qualify?
They often do not answer:
Why should USCIS approve this person?
That second question is where equities become important.
The strongest discretionary cases create a coherent narrative.
The evidence demonstrates:
Historically, family unity has been among the strongest positive equities in immigration law.
This should not be surprising.
Family reunification has long been one of the primary goals of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
When officers evaluate discretionary factors, they frequently consider:
The more significant the family impact, the stronger the equity may become.
Many applicants submit only basic proof of the relationship.
For example:
Those documents establish eligibility.
But they rarely explain the human impact of the case.
An effective discretionary presentation often goes further.
It may demonstrate:
Officers evaluating discretion frequently respond to evidence that shows real-world consequences rather than merely legal relationships.
Length of residence has appeared repeatedly in immigration decisions involving discretion.
The reasoning is straightforward.
The longer someone has lived productively in the United States, the stronger the argument that removal or denial would disrupt established ties.
Long residence may reflect:
For some applicants, years of lawful residence may become one of the strongest favorable factors in the case.
One of the most powerful but often underutilized equities involves economic contribution.
USCIS officers frequently encounter applicants who:
These contributions matter.
Particularly strong examples include:
Physicians.
Dentists.
Nurses.
Therapists.
Healthcare shortages throughout the United States make these equities especially compelling.
Researchers often contribute innovations that benefit public health, technology, education, and national competitiveness.
Business owners may create jobs and stimulate local economic activity.
Applicants with substantial work histories often demonstrate reliability, stability, and integration into American society.
One of the simplest yet most persuasive equities is tax compliance.
Tax records often demonstrate:
Applicants who have consistently filed taxes frequently possess evidence that strengthens both credibility and discretionary arguments.
Conversely, unresolved tax issues can create unnecessary complications.
Education frequently receives less attention than it deserves.
Yet educational achievements often provide compelling evidence of future contributions.
Particularly strong factors include:
International students may have especially strong equities when they demonstrate:
This is one reason many F-1 students may benefit from proactive discretionary submissions.
Some of the most persuasive evidence in an immigration file never appears on government forms.
Community involvement may include:
Such evidence demonstrates something important:
The applicant is invested in the community beyond personal gain.
That message can be extremely powerful.
Many officers seek evidence answering a simple question:
What kind of person is this applicant?
Character evidence may come from:
Strong character evidence is often specific.
The best letters do not simply say:
“He is a good person.”
Instead, they describe:
Specific examples are more persuasive than general praise.
For applicants with adverse factors, rehabilitation may become the single most important equity in the case.
This issue often arises when applicants have:
USCIS officers frequently focus on whether rehabilitation has occurred.
Relevant evidence may include:
The passage of time also matters.
A mistake from twenty years ago may carry less weight than a recent incident.
Humanitarian factors have always played an important role in discretionary adjudications.
Examples include:
These factors may not independently determine a case.
However, they often become important components of the overall discretionary analysis.
Among the most powerful equities are those demonstrating service.
Examples include:
Such evidence often helps officers understand the broader impact of the applicant’s presence in the United States.
After decades of immigration practice, one recurring problem appears in many cases.
Applicants assume officers will connect the dots themselves.
Often they do not.
The strongest evidence in the world may lose value if nobody explains why it matters.
That is why many successful cases include:
An effective memorandum:
Think of the memorandum as the bridge between the evidence and the decision-maker.
Without that bridge, even strong evidence may be overlooked.
Although every officer is different, most discretionary reviews ultimately focus on several questions:
Is this person contributing to society?
The strongest adjustment cases answer all of those questions before USCIS ever asks them.
One of the most significant lessons from the PM-602-0199 debate is that applicants should stop thinking about adjustment solely as a paperwork exercise.
The strongest cases are not merely legally sufficient.
Most importantly, they make it easier for a USCIS officer to conclude:
“This is a case in which favorable discretion should be exercised.”
That is the goal of every Immigration Equities Package.
In the next section, we will build the complete Immigration Equities Package and identify the 100 documents that can help applicants present the strongest possible discretionary record under PM-602-0199.
If the previous sections of this article explained why discretion matters, this section explains how to prove favorable discretion.
Many applicants make a critical mistake.
They assume USCIS will automatically understand the significance of their life story.
They assume officers will infer:
Often they do not.
Immigration officers are reviewing files, forms, records, and evidence.
Their understanding of your case depends largely on what is documented.
An immigration equities package should be submitted to USCIS for adjustment of status.
The purpose of an Immigration Equities Package is simple:
Build a persuasive record that demonstrates why favorable discretion should be exercised.
Not every document below will apply to every applicant.
Most applicants will use only a portion of this checklist.
The goal is not quantity.
The goal is relevance.
The strongest packages are carefully curated and strategically organized.
Family unity has long been recognized as one of the most important positive equities in immigration law.
The USCIS Policy Manual, Matter of Arai, and numerous discretionary cases emphasize the importance of family relationships.
1. Marriage Certificate
2. Children’s Birth Certificates
3. Stepchild Birth Certificates
4. Adoption Decrees
5. Guardianship Orders
6. Family Photographs Over Time
7. Holiday and Family Event Records
8. Family Travel Records
9. School Records Showing Parent Involvement
10. Emergency Contact Records
11. Evidence of Childcare Responsibilities
12. Evidence of Transportation Responsibilities
13. Evidence of Elder Care Responsibilities
14. Evidence of Financial Support to Family Members
15. Health Insurance Coverage for Family Members
16. Spouse Declaration
17. Child Declaration
18. Parent Declaration
19. Sibling Declaration
20. Extended Family Support Letters
Do not simply prove the relationship exists.
Explain why the relationship matters.
A marriage certificate establishes a marriage.
A detailed affidavit explains:
The second document is often far more powerful.
One of the most persuasive categories of evidence involves hardship and humanitarian concerns. Evidence of extreme hardship is critical when adjustment of status is at stake.
21. Physician Letters
22. Specialist Reports
23. Hospital Records
24. Disability Documentation
25. Medication Records
26. Psychological Evaluations
27. Psychiatric Evaluations
28. Counseling Records
29. Trauma Assessments
30. Mental Health Treatment Plans
31. Evidence Applicant Is Primary Caregiver
32. Home Health Documentation
33. Special Needs Child Documentation
34. Elder Care Documentation
35. Caregiver Affidavits
Many adjustment cases are not merely immigration cases.
They are family stability cases.
They are healthcare cases.
They are caregiving cases.
The stronger the evidence of dependency, the stronger the humanitarian equity.
Economic contribution is frequently underestimated.
Many applicants contribute enormously to their communities and local economies.
36. Employment Verification Letter
37. Promotion Records
38. Performance Reviews
39. Professional Awards
40. Letters from Supervisors
41. IRS Tax Transcripts
42. W-2 Forms
43. 1099 Forms
44. Payroll Records
45. State Tax Returns
46. Articles of Incorporation
47. Business Licenses
48. Employee Rosters
49. Payroll Summaries
50. Economic Impact Statements
Particularly compelling evidence often comes from:
These applicants frequently possess strong public-benefit equities.
One of the most overlooked discretionary factors is future potential.
51. High School Diploma
52. College Degree
53. Graduate Degree
54. Academic Transcript
55. Professional Certification
56. Scholarships
57. Academic Awards
58. Research Publications
59. Conference Presentations
60. Faculty Recommendation Letters
F-1 students often assume they lack equities because they are young.
In reality, even a temporary visa holder such as an F-1 student may have strong equities through academics, leadership, and future contributions:
Those factors can be highly persuasive.
One of the strongest indicators of integration is community involvement.
61. Volunteer Logs
62. Nonprofit Service Records
63. Food Bank Service Records
64. Community Center Service Records
65. Youth Mentoring Records
66. Church Leadership Records
67. Synagogue Participation Records
68. Mosque Participation Records
69. Faith-Based Volunteer Documentation
70. Civic Organization Memberships
71. Community Awards
72. Certificates of Appreciation
73. Local Media Coverage
74. Letters from Community Leaders
75. Letters from Clergy
The strongest evidence demonstrates consistent involvement over time.
One volunteer event is good.
Years of service are better.
Applicants with adverse factors should pay particular attention to this section.
The concepts discussed in Matter of Marin and Matter of Mendez-Moralez repeatedly emphasize rehabilitation.
76. Employer Character Letter
77. Coworker Character Letter
78. Teacher Recommendation
79. Clergy Letter
80. Community Leader Letter
81. Counseling Completion Certificates
82. Substance Abuse Treatment Completion Records
83. Anger Management Completion Certificates
84. Probation Completion Records
85. Community Service Completion Records
86. Educational Achievements After Incident
87. Employment Success After Incident
88. Volunteer Work After Incident
89. Family Responsibility Evidence
90. Psychological Rehabilitation Evaluation
USCIS often focuses less on the existence of a past mistake and more on what happened afterward.
Rehabilitation can become one of the strongest equities in a case.
These documents frequently transform an ordinary case into an extraordinary one.
91. Military Service Records
92. Family Military Service Records
93. First Responder Service Records
94. National Awards
95. Industry Awards
96. Professional Recognition
97. Published Works
98. Media Coverage
99. Evidence of Exceptional Talent
100. Attorney Equities Memorandum
Many applicants assume the most important document is:
Often it is not.
The most important document may be:
The Attorney Equities Memorandum
The memorandum serves as the roadmap for the officer.
It explains:
Think of it as the executive summary of the entire case.
Without it, the officer may see 500 pages of evidence.
With it, the officer sees a coherent story.
The strongest packages are usually organized as follows:
Section 1: Cover Letter
Section 2: Attorney Equities Memorandum
Section 3: Family Unity Evidence
Section 4: Humanitarian Evidence
Section 5: Employment and Tax Records
Section 6: Education and Community Contributions
Section 7: Character and Rehabilitation Evidence
Section 8: Exceptional Equities
Section 9: Exhibits and Index
A well-organized package often increases the likelihood that important evidence will actually be reviewed and understood.
One of the biggest misconceptions about adjustment cases is that stronger evidence simply means more evidence.
That is not true.
A 1,000-page filing can be weaker than a 150-page filing.
The goal is not volume.
The goal is persuasion.
The best Immigration Equities Packages accomplish three things:
In the post-PM-602-0199 environment, applicants who proactively build a persuasive discretionary record may place themselves in a significantly stronger position than applicants who simply submit the minimum required forms.
In the next section we will examine how immigration lawyers build Attorney Equities Memoranda, the strategic centerpiece of many successful discretionary cases, and why the narrative of a case may be just as important as the documents themselves.
If there is one concept that separates a routine adjustment filing from a strategically prepared discretionary case, it is the Attorney Equities Memorandum.
Most applicants submit documents.
The strongest applicants submit a narrative.
That narrative is often what determines whether a USCIS officer views a case as:
After discussing the legal framework in the previous sections—including INA §245, the USCIS Policy Manual, Matter of Arai, Matter of Marin, Matter of Mendez-Moralez, and PM-602-0199, one reality becomes clear:
Evidence alone is not enough.
The evidence must be organized, contextualized, explained, and connected to the legal standards governing discretionary decision-making.
That is the purpose of an Attorney Equities Memorandum.
An Attorney Equities Memorandum is a legal brief submitted to USCIS explaining why favorable discretion should be exercised.
Think of it as a roadmap.
Without a roadmap, an officer may receive:
The officer sees documents.
The memorandum explains what those documents mean.
It answers the question:
Why should USCIS approve this case?
Prior to PM-602-0199, many adjustment applications were submitted with little more than required forms and supporting documentation.
For straightforward cases, that often worked.
However, once USCIS began emphasizing discretionary review, many practitioners started asking a different question:
If officers are being instructed to think about discretion, should attorneys be making the discretionary argument affirmatively?
The answer is increasingly yes.
The strongest cases no longer assume the officer will identify favorable equities independently.
One of the biggest mistakes applicants make is assuming that every page submitted receives equal attention.
In reality, USCIS officers manage significant caseloads.
They review:
The officer may be presented with hundreds or even thousands of pages of material.
The Attorney Equities Memorandum serves as an executive summary.
It tells the officer:
This alone can dramatically improve the effectiveness of a filing.
The strongest memoranda generally follow a consistent structure.
The memorandum should begin with a concise explanation of the case.
For example:
This memorandum is submitted in support of Applicant’s Form I-485 and requests a favorable exercise of discretion under INA §245.
The introduction identifies:
The goal is clarity.
Many immigration cases involve complex histories.
Examples include:
Rather than forcing the officer to reconstruct the timeline, the memorandum should provide a clear chronology.
A well-written timeline often eliminates confusion before it arises.
This section explains the governing legal standards.
Depending upon the case, attorneys may discuss:
The goal is not to overwhelm the officer with legal citations.
The goal is to establish the framework through which favorable discretion should be evaluated.
This is where many memoranda succeed or fail.
Too often attorneys merely list exhibits.
The better approach is to tell a story.
Each equity should be addressed separately.
Discuss:
Do not merely state that family members exist.
Explain the role the applicant plays within the family.
Discuss:
Explain how the applicant contributes to the economy.
Discuss:
This section can be particularly powerful for students, physicians, researchers, and highly skilled professionals.
Discuss:
This evidence often demonstrates integration into American society.
Discuss:
These factors often carry significant weight.
Where adverse factors exist, rehabilitation should be addressed directly.
Avoiding the issue is usually a mistake.
Instead:
This approach often enhances credibility.
One of the most common mistakes in immigration advocacy is pretending adverse facts do not exist.
USCIS generally already knows.
Background checks.
Prior filings.
Government databases.
Interview questioning.
These often reveal issues regardless of whether they are discussed.
The better strategy is usually transparency.
Strong memoranda confront adverse factors directly.
Examples include:
The discussion should then explain:
This is the balancing framework reflected in decisions such as Matter of Marin and Matter of Mendez-Moralez.
The best memoranda do more than recite facts.
They help the officer understand the applicant as a person.
Consider the difference.
Applicant has two children.
Applicant serves as the primary caregiver for two U.S. citizen children, transports them to school and medical appointments, provides financial support, and manages daily childcare responsibilities while the U.S. citizen spouse works full-time.
The facts may be similar.
The impact is very different.
Persuasion often lies in context.
One of the most underutilized tools in discretionary advocacy is the affidavit.
Documents prove events.
Affidavits explain meaning.
An affidavit may explain:
The strongest affidavits are detailed, specific, and credible.
They tell stories.
They provide examples.
They explain consequences.
Consider a physician seeking adjustment.
The basic filing proves eligibility.
An equities memorandum may additionally explain:
The physician becomes more than a beneficiary.
The physician becomes an asset to the community.
Consider an F-1 student who experienced a status violation.
A strong memorandum may discuss:
The narrative shifts from a technical violation to a broader story of contribution and future potential.
The strongest memoranda often focus heavily on:
These cases frequently contain powerful family-unity equities.
After reviewing thousands of immigration cases, several recurring mistakes appear.
The evidence is submitted without explanation.
The memorandum contains legal conclusions but little human detail.
The memorandum fails to address known issues.
More pages do not necessarily create a stronger case.
The officer receives documents but never learns the applicant’s story.
If PM-602-0199 ultimately changes anything, it may not be approval rates.
It may be presentation quality.
For years, many adjustment filings focused almost entirely on eligibility.
The future may belong to applicants who understand something different:
Discretion is often about storytelling supported by evidence.
The strongest adjustment cases are not simply legally sufficient.
It is often the document that transforms a collection of exhibits into a compelling case for favorable discretion.
One of the biggest misconceptions about favorable discretion is the belief that every case should be presented the same way.
That is not how effective immigration advocacy works.
The strongest Immigration Equities Packages are customized.
A physician’s equities package should look very different from a college student’s.
An entrepreneur’s package should look different from a marriage-based applicant’s.
A waiver applicant’s package should look different from someone with a pristine immigration history.
The legal principles discussed in Part II remain the same.
The balancing framework described in Matter of Arai, Matter of Marin, and Matter of Mendez-Moralez still applies.
What changes is the evidence.
What changes is the story.
What changes is the emphasis.
This section examines how favorable discretion can be developed in several common adjustment-of-status scenarios.
Marriage-based cases may ultimately become some of the most scrutinized adjustment applications under the framework discussed in PM-602-0199.
Many applicants assume that proving a bona fide marriage is enough.
That may establish eligibility.
It does not necessarily maximize discretion.
Beyond proving the marriage itself, officers may evaluate:
Examples include:
Evidence that one spouse relies heavily on the other emotionally, financially, medically, or practically.
Evidence of involvement with:
Evidence that the couple has become integrated into the local community.
Evidence of shared planning and commitment.
Many couples submit hundreds of pages proving the marriage is real but almost nothing demonstrating why approval serves broader discretionary goals.
Those are different issues.
F-1 students may be among the most overlooked beneficiaries of an Immigration Equities Package.
Many students mistakenly believe:
“I am young. I do not own a business. I do not have children. I have no equities.”
Often the opposite is true.
One of the most persuasive arguments may be:
These are powerful equities.
A Belarusian student pursuing higher education may possess strong discretionary factors including:
A strong equities package should address all of them.
H-1B professionals often possess equities that are surprisingly underdeveloped in adjustment filings.
Many applications focus exclusively on:
Yet these applicants frequently possess exceptional discretionary factors.
Evidence demonstrating unique expertise.
Evidence showing:
Volunteer and charitable activities often strengthen the narrative.
Many H-1B workers have established deep roots in the United States.
A software engineer who merely occupies a position is one thing.
A software engineer whose work supports critical infrastructure, creates jobs, mentors younger workers, and contributes to the local community presents a much stronger discretionary case.
Healthcare professionals may possess some of the strongest equities available in adjustment practice.
This is particularly true in underserved communities.
Documentation demonstrating community need.
Hospital systems can often provide compelling evidence.
Without violating privacy rules, employers may document:
Academic physicians often possess additional equities through:
Healthcare workers frequently embody multiple positive factors simultaneously:
Few categories offer a stronger discretionary narrative.
Entrepreneurs often focus almost entirely on business records.
That is only part of the story.
The strongest cases explain broader impact.
How many workers depend on the business?
What revenue is generated?
How does the business serve local residents?
Has the business developed new products or services?
A successful entrepreneur is not merely seeking a green card.
The entrepreneur may support:
That context matters.
Applicants seeking waivers often have the greatest need for strong discretionary evidence.
Waiver law has always involved balancing favorable and adverse factors.
As a result, Immigration Equities Packages may be particularly important.
Many waiver applicants focus entirely on hardship.
That is understandable.
However, hardship is often only one component of a broader discretionary argument.
Perhaps no category benefits more from proactive discretionary advocacy.
The central question is usually not:
Did something happen?
The agency often already knows the answer.
The more important question becomes:
What happened afterward?
A single incident fifteen years ago may be viewed differently than a recent incident.
Evidence demonstrating sustained rehabilitation often becomes critical.
This category may become especially important under PM-602-0199.
Examples include:
Many applicants attempt to minimize or ignore prior immigration issues.
That approach can undermine credibility.
A better strategy often involves:
Although every adjustment case may benefit from additional discretionary evidence, certain categories stand out.
These include:
Despite their differences, successful discretionary cases tend to share several characteristics.
They are:
One of the lasting effects of PM-602-0199 may be the emergence of what could be called “equities-based immigration advocacy.”
For years, many adjustment filings focused primarily on legal eligibility.
The next generation of successful filings may increasingly focus on something else:
demonstrating why approval advances family unity, economic prosperity, humanitarian values, and the public interest.
Applicants who begin building that record early may have a significant advantage.
Waiting until an interview, RFE, NOID, or denial often makes the process more difficult.
The best time to build positive equities is before USCIS asks for them.
In the next section, we will examine emerging trends, likely future developments, and Richard Herman’s predictions regarding discretionary adjudications, RFEs, NOIDs, litigation, AI-assisted review systems, and the future of adjustment of status under PM-602-0199.
When USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, much of the immediate discussion focused on one question:
Will more adjustment cases be denied?
That question is understandable.
But it may not be the most important one.
The more significant question may be:
How will adjustment practice evolve over the next several years?
Policy memoranda come and go.
Administrations change.
Litigation alters implementation.
Agency priorities shift.
Yet some developments leave lasting effects even when the original controversy fades.
PM-602-0199 may prove to be one of those developments.
Whether or not the memorandum ultimately results in significantly higher denial rates, it has already changed the conversation.
It has forced applicants, attorneys, employers, universities, and policymakers to focus on something that was often overlooked:
Favorable discretion matters.
The long-term consequences may be substantial.
Historically, many adjustment cases were filed with:
For straightforward cases, that was often sufficient.
The future may look different.
Increasingly, attorneys are likely to submit:
The distinction between a routine filing and a strategic filing may become more pronounced.
Applicants who proactively build strong discretionary records may place themselves in a stronger position than applicants who merely submit minimum documentation.
One of the most likely consequences of PM-602-0199 is not necessarily more denials.
It may be more requests for information.
USCIS already possesses powerful tools to obtain additional evidence through:
As discretion receives greater emphasis, officers may seek more information regarding:
Applicants should not be surprised if future RFEs increasingly focus on discretionary issues rather than purely technical eligibility questions.
One theme appears repeatedly throughout immigration law.
Credibility matters.
When officers evaluate discretion, they often examine whether the applicant’s story is:
Even strong equities may lose value if credibility concerns arise.
This is one reason attorneys increasingly focus on ensuring consistency across:
The strongest cases are often those with the fewest inconsistencies.
One of the most significant long-term developments in immigration adjudications may have little to do with PM-602-0199 itself.
It may involve technology.
USCIS, DHS, CBP, ICE, and other agencies already possess access to vast amounts of information.
At the same time, government agencies continue investing in:
While AI does not make immigration decisions independently, technology increasingly assists officers in identifying:
As discussed in our article on Can USCIS Use AI to Scrutinize Your Immigration Case?, applicants should assume that information submitted to the government may be reviewed more comprehensively than ever before.
This reality reinforces the importance of accuracy, consistency, and documentation.
For years, detailed legal memoranda were typically associated with:
That may change.
Increasingly, attorneys may begin treating adjustment filings more like discretionary advocacy packages.
The result could be a significant increase in:
In many cases, the memorandum may become one of the most important documents in the file.
One of the most predictable consequences of major immigration policy changes is litigation.
PM-602-0199 is unlikely to be an exception.
Immigration lawyers, advocacy organizations, employers, universities, and affected applicants will continue scrutinizing how the policy is implemented.
Future litigation may involve:
Federal courts will likely continue shaping the boundaries of adjustment adjudications.
Family-based immigration remains one of the largest adjustment categories.
As discretion receives more attention, officers may increasingly focus on:
Applicants should expect officers to look beyond basic eligibility documents.
The strength of the overall family narrative may become increasingly important.
Employment-based applicants often possess extraordinary equities.
Unfortunately, those equities are not always presented effectively.
A physician may save lives.
A researcher may develop groundbreaking innovations.
An entrepreneur may create jobs.
An engineer may contribute to critical infrastructure.
Yet adjustment filings frequently reduce these individuals to forms and supporting exhibits.
The future may require more effective presentation of these contributions.
One lesson from decades of immigration practice is that humanitarian factors often resonate strongly with decision-makers.
Examples include:
These factors have always mattered.
PM-602-0199 may encourage applicants and attorneys to document them more thoroughly.
Perhaps the most important prediction is also the simplest.
The best discretionary cases are rarely built overnight.
The strongest records are developed over time.
Applicants who consistently:
often accumulate positive equities naturally.
The challenge is documenting them effectively.
Several years from now, immigration practitioners may look back on PM-602-0199 and conclude that its greatest impact was not a dramatic increase in denials.
Its greatest impact may have been changing how lawyers prepare cases.
For decades, many adjustment filings focused primarily on eligibility.
The memorandum forced practitioners to revisit a question that has existed since Congress enacted adjustment of status:
Why should favorable discretion be exercised?
That question is now driving a new generation of immigration advocacy.
Increasingly, successful cases may depend upon an applicant’s ability to demonstrate:
These concepts have always existed.
The difference is that more people are paying attention to them now.
Every major immigration policy shift creates uncertainty.
PM-602-0199 is no exception.
Yet uncertainty often creates opportunity.
Applicants who understand the role of discretion have an opportunity to present stronger cases.
Attorneys who understand discretionary advocacy have an opportunity to provide greater value.
Employers, students, physicians, entrepreneurs, families, and humanitarian applicants all have an opportunity to build records that tell a compelling story.
The future of adjustment practice may not be defined by who qualifies.
It may increasingly be defined by who persuades.
That is why the Immigration Equities Package is likely to become one of the most important concepts in immigration law over the next decade.
The following questions are based on inquiries immigration lawyers throughout the United States have received since USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199.
These questions are also the types of queries increasingly being asked in Google, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, and AI-powered search tools.
General Questions About PM-602-0199
What is USCIS Memo PM-602-0199?
PM-602-0199 is a USCIS policy memorandum issued on May 21, 2026, emphasizing that adjustment of status under INA §245 is a discretionary benefit and not an entitlement. The memo instructs officers to evaluate whether applicants merit a favorable exercise of discretion in addition to meeting statutory eligibility requirements.
Did PM-602-0199 change the law?
No.
USCIS cannot change federal immigration statutes through a policy memorandum.
Congress enacted adjustment of status through INA §245.
The memo does not change statutory eligibility requirements.
Instead, it focuses on how USCIS officers exercise discretionary authority during adjudications.
Does PM-602-0199 make adjustment of status harder?
Possibly in some cases.
The memo may result in greater scrutiny of discretionary factors, stronger documentation requirements, additional RFEs, and more detailed interviews.
However, the memo does not eliminate adjustment of status or automatically make applicants ineligible.
Is adjustment of status still available after PM-602-0199?
Yes.
Adjustment of status remains one of the primary pathways to lawful permanent residence in the United States.
Nothing in PM-602-0199 eliminates adjustment eligibility for qualifying applicants.
Did USCIS walk back PM-602-0199?
Many immigration lawyers believe USCIS later clarified aspects of the memorandum after significant criticism from attorneys, employers, universities, and advocacy organizations.
Although the legal principles remain in place, subsequent agency messaging appeared intended to reassure stakeholders that adjustment of status remains available and that individualized review remains required.
Questions About Discretion
What does “favorable discretion” mean?
Favorable discretion means USCIS determines that an applicant deserves approval after considering all relevant circumstances, including positive and negative factors.
What is the difference between eligibility and discretion?
Eligibility asks:
Can you receive a green card?
Discretion asks:
Should USCIS approve your green card application?
Both issues matter.
Can USCIS deny an I-485 even if I am eligible?
Yes.
Adjustment of status has always been discretionary.
In certain circumstances, USCIS may deny an application despite statutory eligibility.
Does USCIS have unlimited discretion?
No.
USCIS must follow federal statutes, regulations, agency guidance, and constitutional principles.
Discretionary decisions cannot be arbitrary, discriminatory, or contrary to law.
What legal authority gives USCIS discretion?
The authority comes primarily from INA §245, which provides that USCIS “may” adjust status in its discretion.
What cases discuss favorable discretion?
Several important decisions include:
These cases continue to influence discretionary analysis across immigration law.
Questions About Immigration Equities Packages
What is an Immigration Equities Package?
An Immigration Equities Package is a collection of documents and legal arguments designed to demonstrate why USCIS should exercise favorable discretion and approve an application.
Is an Immigration Equities Package required?
No.
USCIS generally does not require one.
However, many applicants may benefit from proactively presenting favorable discretionary evidence.
Who should consider preparing an Immigration Equities Package?
Particularly strong candidates include:
When should I start building an Immigration Equities Package?
Ideally before filing.
The strongest discretionary cases are built over time rather than assembled after problems arise.
Can I submit an equities package after filing?
Yes.
Depending on the circumstances, evidence may be submitted:
Early preparation is usually preferable.
Questions About Positive Equities
What are positive equities in immigration law?
Positive equities are favorable factors supporting approval.
Examples include:
What is the strongest positive equity?
There is no universal answer.
The most persuasive equity depends on the case.
Commonly powerful factors include:
Do tax returns help an I-485 case?
Often yes.
Tax compliance may demonstrate responsibility, honesty, and economic contribution.
Does volunteer work help?
Yes.
Community service frequently serves as evidence of integration, character, and commitment to society.
Can letters of support help?
Absolutely.
Detailed, credible letters often provide context that official documents cannot.
The best letters contain specific examples rather than generic praise.
Questions About Family-Based Cases
Will marriage-based green card cases face more scrutiny?
Possibly.
Marriage-based cases remain eligible for adjustment, but officers may pay greater attention to discretionary considerations and credibility issues.
Can family hardship help an adjustment case?
Yes.
Hardship may be a significant positive equity, particularly when supported by documentation.
Do U.S. citizen children help an I-485 application?
Often yes.
Family unity has long been considered a favorable factor in immigration adjudications.
Should I document caregiving responsibilities?
Absolutely.
Caregiving evidence can be among the strongest discretionary factors available.
Questions About Students and Employment-Based Applicants
Can F-1 students benefit from an Immigration Equities Package?
Yes.
Students often possess strong equities involving education, research, leadership, volunteer service, and future contributions.
Can H-1B workers benefit from an equities package?
Yes.
Many H-1B professionals have significant economic, professional, and community contributions that strengthen discretionary arguments.
Do physicians have strong discretionary factors?
Often yes.
Healthcare providers frequently demonstrate:
Can entrepreneurs use an Immigration Equities Package?
Absolutely.
Job creation, innovation, economic activity, and community involvement may all serve as positive equities.
Questions About Criminal History and Immigration Violations
Can an applicant with an arrest record still build a strong discretionary case?
Yes.
Many successful cases involve evidence of rehabilitation, character development, and positive contributions after the incident.
Does rehabilitation matter?
Very much.
In many cases, rehabilitation becomes one of the most important factors in the discretionary analysis.
Can prior immigration violations be overcome?
Sometimes.
The significance depends on:
Should I disclose negative information?
Generally yes.
Attempting to conceal information often creates greater problems than addressing it honestly and proactively.
Questions About RFEs and NOIDs
Will PM-602-0199 result in more RFEs?
Possibly.
Many practitioners expect USCIS to seek additional discretionary evidence in some cases.
What should I do if I receive an RFE?
Take it seriously.
Consult experienced counsel and provide organized, well-documented responses.
What should I do if I receive a NOID?
Act immediately.
NOIDs often involve significant concerns that require careful legal and factual responses.
Questions About the Future
Will USCIS deny more I-485 applications?
No one knows.
The long-term impact of PM-602-0199 remains uncertain.
However, stronger documentation and proactive case preparation are likely to become increasingly important.
Will AI affect immigration adjudications?
Government agencies continue expanding the use of technology, analytics, and digital review systems.
Applicants should assume that consistency and credibility matter more than ever.
What is the best way to strengthen an adjustment case today?
Three things:
Applicants who do all three are often in the strongest position.
The biggest lesson of PM-602-0199 is not fear.
It is preparation.
For years, many applicants viewed adjustment of status primarily as a paperwork process.
Increasingly, it may become a process that combines:
The applicants who understand this shift early will often be best positioned for success.
USCIS and Government Resources
Key Case Law on Immigration Discretion
Herman Legal Group Resources on PM-602-0199 and I-485 Discretion
Herman Legal Group Green Card and Adjustment Resources
Herman Legal Group RFE, NOID, and Denial Resources
Herman Legal Group Waiver and Consular Processing Resources
Herman Legal Group Removal Defense and Litigation Resources
Herman Legal Group Security Vetting, Delays, and Policy Resources
Herman Legal Group Firm and Consultation Resources
PM-602-0199 did not eliminate adjustment of status.
But it did make one point impossible to ignore:
Applicants should be prepared to show not only that they are eligible for a green card, but also that they deserve a favorable exercise of discretion.
That means the strongest cases may increasingly depend on:
An Immigration Equities Package is not just a checklist.
It is a strategic record designed to show USCIS why approval is justified, humane, lawful, and in the public interest.
USCIS officers do not simply review forms.
They review people.
They review families.
They review careers.
They review life stories.
The challenge is ensuring that your story is presented clearly, persuasively, and strategically.
Whether you are:
the way your case is documented may significantly affect the outcome.
At Herman Legal Group, we help clients build comprehensive Immigration Equities Packages, develop persuasive Attorney Equities Memoranda, prepare for interviews, respond to RFEs and NOIDs, and present the strongest possible case for favorable discretion.
Our team closely monitors:
If you want a strategic assessment of your case and guidance on building a compelling record for favorable discretion, schedule a consultation with Richard Herman or an experienced Herman Legal Group attorney.
Call 1-800-808-4013
Or schedule your consultation online today.
The strongest adjustment cases rarely happen by accident.
They are built deliberately, documented carefully, and presented strategically.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Founder, Herman Legal Group
Many applicants are asking, Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This question is crucial for understanding the current immigration landscape.
No, USCIS has not withdrawn PM-602-0199.
However, there is growing evidence that DHS and USCIS have softened the most aggressive public interpretation of the memorandum following intense criticism from immigration lawyers, employers, universities, advocacy organizations, and the media.
For those wondering, Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? The answers lie in the details of the policy changes and their interpretations.
The result is a confusing but critically important reality:
The memo remains in force. The law has not changed. But the government’s explanation of the memo appears to have evolved.
As we explore the implications, many will ask: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? Understanding this is essential for applicants.
That distinction may determine the future of hundreds of thousands of pending and future adjustment-of-status applications.
Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? If you only read one section of this article, read this:
Curious minds want to know—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? It’s a pivotal question in immigration circles today.
USCIS Has Not Eliminated Adjustment of Status
Marriage-based adjustment remains available.
Employment-based adjustment remains available.
Adjustment for parents of U.S. citizens remains available.
Adjustment for many F-1 students, H-1B workers, L-1 executives, and other eligible applicants remains available.
USCIS Has Not Changed the Statute
Congress has not amended INA §245.
USCIS cannot rewrite the Immigration and Nationality Act through a memorandum.
USCIS May Be Applying Greater Discretionary Scrutiny
The biggest practical effect of PM-602-0199 may be increased emphasis on:
Attorneys Are Not Reporting Mass Denials
Interviews continue.
Approvals continue.
Cases continue moving forward.
The recent developments surrounding the Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? have raised questions among many applicants regarding their adjustment of status applications. Understanding the implications of the Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? is crucial for applicants navigating this process.
For clarity, let’s discuss—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This question has been on the minds of many immigration applicants.
Strong Cases Need Stronger Presentation
The future may belong to applicants who not only prove eligibility but also demonstrate why they deserve a favorable exercise of discretion.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued the USCIS policy memorandum, Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199:
Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199
“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.”
This USCIS policy memorandum guides adjudication practice but does not itself change statutes or regulations.
Official USCIS Memorandum:
USCIS simultaneously issued a press release stating:
“US Citizenship and Immigration Services will grant adjustment of status only in extraordinary circumstances.”
The policy memo and the press release together triggered immediate concern.
USCIS Press Release:
The immigration bar immediately reacted.
Many lawyers interpreted the announcement as an attempt to dramatically curtail adjustment of status and force applicants into consular processing abroad.
In the current debate, the question remains—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? Understanding this will guide applicants in their journey.
For decades, adjustment of status has been one of the most important pathways to permanent residence.
It allows eligible individuals already inside the United States to obtain green cards without departing and risking:
The original USCIS announcement created the impression that adjustment had become a rare exception rather than a routine statutory pathway.
Many attorneys worried that:
Those concerns were amplified by media reports from Reuters, AP, the Washington Post, and others.
Reuters:
Associated Press:
https://apnews.com/article/8f64f9ada5c3f04e511a7b3cf43eaa13
Reflecting on recent events, we must consider—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? An important discussion for future applicants.
The most important development may not have been the memo itself.
It may have been what happened afterward.
In reporting published by the New York Times on May 29, 2026, DHS officials reportedly clarified that the policy should not be interpreted as requiring every applicant to leave the United States and pursue consular processing.
Instead, officials emphasized that USCIS evaluates adjustment applications on a case by case basis, with individualized determinations and officer discretion.
The practical effect was significant.
The original public message sounded categorical.
The later explanation sounded discretionary.
Those are very different things.
If the policy is categorical:
If the policy is discretionary:
That distinction lies at the heart of the current controversy.
May 21–22, 2026.
USCIS issues PM-602-0199.
The agency announces adjustment will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances.
The immigration community reacts with alarm.
The days that follow.
AILA objects.
Employers object.
Universities object.
Immigration lawyers object.
Major media outlets report widespread concern.
Questions emerge about legality, implementation, and congressional intent.
AILA Resource Center:
By May 29, DHS appears to be signaling a more nuanced approach.
Media reporting suggests:
As we analyze these circumstances, one question persists: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? It’s crucial for prospective applicants.
The practical implementation increasingly appears narrower than many initially feared.
This may be the most important section of this article.
Shortly after PM-602-0199 was issued, Richard Herman attended an adjustment interview.
During that interview, a USCIS officer acknowledged concerns generated by the memorandum.
The officer indicated that applicants should not automatically assume the most aggressive interpretation would govern every case.
One officer does not create agency policy.
But the comment is significant because it mirrors what attorneys around the country are reporting:
What lawyers are generally not seeing:
Instead, attorneys are seeing greater emphasis on discretionary review, with uscis officers appearing to weigh cases more individually during interviews and adjudications.
Based on practitioner discussions, webinars, attorney reports, and client experiences:
This is a very different reality from what many feared during the first days following the memo.
This remains one of the most fascinating questions.
After all:
Adjustment was already a discretionary benefit under immigration law, not an automatic entitlement.
The statute did not change.
Federal court precedent did not change.
So why issue PM-602-0199?
USCIS wanted to encourage more consular processing.
USCIS wanted officers to exercise discretion more aggressively.
The memo was intended as a deterrence signal.
Critics argue the practical effect was to create uncertainty and fear among immigrants, employers, students, and families across the immigration system, especially when deterrence messaging can influence whether applicants pursue adjustment or consular processing.
Whether that was the intended goal is ultimately a matter of interpretation.
What is not debatable is that the memo immediately changed behavior and generated widespread anxiety.
If discretion matters more, positive equities matter more.
Examples include:
Applicants should not assume USCIS will infer these positive factors supporting favorable discretion.
They should document them.
Well-documented positive discretionary factors can affect the discretionary balance.
Potential negative factors include:
A negative factor does not automatically result in denial.
But it should be addressed directly and strategically, because uscis officers apply discretion by weighing positive and negative factors when making the decision.
Marriage cases remain viable.
But documentation, consistency, and credibility are becoming increasingly important.
Relevant HLG Resources:
Marriage Green Card Guide:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/marriage-green-card-2026-ohio-complete-guide/
Who Can File for a Marriage-Based Green Card?
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/who-can-file-for-a-marriage-based-green-card/
I-485 Marriage Adjustment Guide:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/i-485-marriage-adjustment-steps-2026-guide/
Employment-based applicants often possess strong positive equities, including education, professional achievements, employer sponsorship, and economic benefit to the United States:
Maintaining lawful status or another valid nonimmigrant status can also strengthen the discretionary presentation in employment-based cases.
With all these developments, the query arises—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This remains a key concern for many.
But employment-based applicants should also be prepared to address:
International students remain anxious.
Many F-1 students are asking:
The answer depends on the facts, because a student’s underlying status and underlying nonimmigrant status can affect risk, travel strategy, and how a future adjustment case is viewed.
But there is currently no evidence that USCIS intends to categorically deny adjustment applications filed by students who are otherwise eligible.
Students in different status categories may need further guidance as USCIS clarifies how the memo applies in practice.
The memo is likely here to stay.
Practical application may become more moderate than the original announcement suggested. That softening may continue through public explanations, a policy memo reiterating existing law, or later updates rather than a formal withdrawal.
Expect more requests for evidence.
Applicants will need to prove more than eligibility by documenting positive discretionary factors such as immigration history, community involvement, and other favorable evidence.
Federal courts will likely become increasingly involved, alongside immigration court decisions and long standing immigration law that will shape the future debate over the memo.
The strongest cases will proactively demonstrate why discretion should be exercised favorably.
In conclusion, the central issue is: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This remains a pertinent topic for ongoing discussions.
No—USCIS has not retracted the policy memo.
Not formally, but many attorneys believe implementation is becoming more moderate than the initial announcement suggested. Questions like—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo?—are still common.
Yes—eligible applicants can still adjust status or file new cases, even though scrutiny is higher.
Yes.
Yes. Adjustment remains discretionary.
Generally no, but the question of whether Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? looms large amidst the changes.
No.
Family ties, employment, tax compliance, community contributions, education, rehabilitation, and hardship factors.
Criminal history, immigration violations, fraud, misrepresentation, credibility concerns, and public safety issues.
Continued interviews and approvals are happening; however, heightened scrutiny leaves many wondering, Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo?
Continued interviews and approvals, but increased discretionary scrutiny.
Will USCIS Deny My I-485 Under the New Memo?
What Happens If Your Adjustment Is Denied?
Marriage Green Card 2026 Guide
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/marriage-green-card-2026-ohio-complete-guide/
I-485 Marriage Adjustment Guide
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/i-485-marriage-adjustment-steps-2026-guide/
USCIS Vetting and AI Hub
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/exploring-uscis-vetting-center-atlanta-ai-hub-2026/
USCIS PM-602-0199
USCIS Press Release
USCIS Policy Manual
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-e-chapter-8
Reuters
Associated Press
https://apnews.com/article/8f64f9ada5c3f04e511a7b3cf43eaa13
WBUR / Here & Now
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2026/05/26/trump-green-card-rules
AILA Resource Center
Morgan Lewis Analysis
https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/05/uscis-issues-new-policy-memorandum-on-adjustment-of-status
The memo has not been withdrawn.
The law has not changed.
But the government’s explanation of the memo appears to have changed.
The story today is not whether PM-602-0199 exists.
The story is whether USCIS is quietly implementing it far more narrowly than the original announcement suggested.
For many applicants, adjustment of status remains available as a path to becoming lawful permanent residents.
The question is no longer simply whether you qualify.
Increasingly, the question may be whether your case is prepared, documented, and presented in a way that shows humanitarian considerations, addresses parole status issues where relevant, and supports why USCIS should exercise favorable discretion.
In light of recent developments, many are asking: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This question is becoming increasingly relevant.
If you are asking:
You should seek individualized legal advice before making strategic decisions. If you are in H-1B and L-1 or another dual intent situation, evaluate your underlying status before travel or strategy changes.
Herman Legal Group has been analyzing PM-602-0199 since the day it was issued, commenting on the policy in national media, representing clients at adjustment interviews, responding to RFEs and NOIDs, litigating immigration cases in federal court, and helping immigrants navigate rapidly changing USCIS policies.
If you are concerned about how PM-602-0199 may affect your green card case, schedule a consultation with Richard Herman or an experienced HLG immigration attorney.
People are increasingly concerned: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? Consulting experts is vital for navigating these changes.
Call 1-800-808-4013 or schedule a consultation online today.
Make sure to address the question: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This could impact your immigration process significantly.
The strongest cases are usually built before USCIS raises concerns—not after.
Ultimately, stay informed about the question: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? Knowledge is power when navigating immigration issues.
By Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney with Over 30 Years of Experience
One of the most common questions immigrants are asking right now is: “Is it still safe to travel with pending I-485 in 2026?”
That fear has intensified dramatically after the Trump administration’s new USCIS adjustment-of-status memo, expanded immigration vetting, increasing reports of aggressive CBP inspections, and growing concerns about discretionary denials.
For years, many immigrants with pending adjustment-of-status applications believed international travel was relatively routine if they had Advance Parole, H-1B status, L-1 status, or another valid travel mechanism.
Now many immigrants are afraid that travel with pending I-485 in 2026 could cause USCIS to deny adjustment, CBP to refuse reentry, social media screening to trigger problems, or travel itself to become a negative discretionary factor in their pending i-485 international travel case.
Those concerns have become especially intense following the new USCIS I-485 memo issued in May 2026 emphasizing that adjustment of status is discretionary. The memo repeatedly states that adjustment is an “extraordinary act of grace.”
Immigration lawyers nationwide now expect more RFEs, more NOIDs, broader discretionary review, expanded immigration “risk assessments,” and greater scrutiny of adjustment applicants when you travel with pending I-485 in 2026, including advance parole risks 2026.
This comprehensive guide explains everything you need to know about whether immigrants should travel with pending I-485 in 2026, risks involving Advance Parole, H-1B and F-1 travel issues, CBP inspection risks, unlawful presence concerns, and what immigrants should do now.
This week, immigration attorney Richard Herman appeared on multiple NPR-affiliated programs discussing the administration’s new adjustment-of-status policies and growing immigrant fear regarding travel, immigration screening, and “risk assessments.”
Listen here:
During the interviews, Richard Herman explained that immigrants are increasingly requesting “immigration risk assessment” before filing Form I-485, traveling internationally, changing employers, or deciding whether to remain in the United States.
The interviews discussed growing concerns regarding social media vetting, CBP screening, discretionary denials, and expanded immigration scrutiny related to pending i-485 international travel.
Richard Herman also recently discussed fear among international students in another NPR-affiliated interview: WBUR / NPR – Immigration Lawyer Says International Students Are Nervous to Come Study in the U.S. That interview focused heavily on travel anxiety, immigration screening, visa uncertainty, and social media review.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 – Adjustment of Status and Discretion.
The memo repeatedly emphasizes that adjustment of status is discretionary and states that adjustment is an “extraordinary act of grace.”
Official USCIS guidance: • USCIS Policy Manual – Adjustment of Status Discretion • USCIS Form I-485
Immigration lawyers nationwide fear the memo may lead to increased discretionary denials, expanded social media review, more aggressive scrutiny, and greater pressure toward consular processing for anyone planning to travel with pending I-485 in 2026 or facing uscis i-485 memo 2026 implications.
Related Herman Legal Group analysis:
It depends entirely on your immigration history and current status.
For some immigrants, travel with pending I-485 in 2026 may still be relatively safe. For others, departure from the United States could create serious immigration risks in their pending i-485 international travel plans.
The answer depends on factors including immigration status, unlawful presence history, criminal history, prior removal orders, Advance Parole validity, visa type, and CBP inspection risks when you travel with pending i-485 in 2026.
There is no universal answer when deciding whether to travel with pending I-485 in 2026.
Advance Parole is travel authorization issued by USCIS allowing certain immigrants with pending adjustment applications to leave the United States and seek parole back into the country.
Official USCIS guidance: USCIS Form I-131 – Advance Parole.
Important: Advance Parole does NOT guarantee admission. CBP officers still retain authority to inspect travelers, review admissibility, and deny entry in certain situations — even when you travel with pending I-485 in 2026 under advance parole risks 2026.
Potentially yes. This is one of the greatest dangers when you travel with pending I-485 in 2026.
Immigrants with prior unlawful presence, visa overstays, or status violations may trigger INA 212(a)(9)(B) upon departure under unlawful presence bar i-485 travel.
Official USCIS guidance: USCIS Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility.
Potential consequences may include 3-year bars, 10-year bars, visa denials, or inability to return.
Potentially yes. Advance Parole is discretionary parole authority — not guaranteed admission.
CBP officers may still examine immigration history, criminal history, prior misrepresentations, social media activity, travel patterns, and national-security concerns when you travel with pending I-485 in 2026 leading to cbp inspection pending i-485 or cbp reentry denial advance parole.
Many immigrants now fear secondary inspection, device searches, social media screening, or aggressive questioning at airports. These fears were specifically discussed during Richard Herman’s NPR interviews this week and relate to social media screening cbp 2026.
Potentially yes. H-1B and L-1 visas are dual-intent visas. This often provides greater flexibility for international travel during adjustment processing when you travel with pending I-485 in 2026 or h-1b travel with pending i-485.
Official USCIS guidance:
• USCIS H-1B Specialty Occupations
• USCIS L-1 Intracompany Transfers
However, even H-1B and L-1 travelers may face increased scrutiny in 2026.
Related: • Should H-1B Holders Avoid Filing I-485 Right Now? • H-1B Immigration Resources
Potentially yes. F-1 students already face immigrant intent concerns, SEVIS scrutiny, CPT review, and visa-renewal risks leading to f-1 student i-485 travel risks.
Now many students also fear social media vetting, discretionary scrutiny, and travel-related denial risks when they travel with pending I-485 in 2026.
Related:
• Can F-1 Students Still Get Green Cards?
• F-1 Student Visa Resources
Possibly. One of the most controversial aspects of the new memo is its emphasis on discretionary review and “totality of circumstances” under discretionary denial i-485 and adjustment of status travel risks 2026.
Some immigration lawyers fear USCIS officers may increasingly evaluate travel patterns, international ties, immigration intent, and broader “risk indicators” when you travel with pending I-485 in 2026.
At the moment, USCIS has not formally stated that travel itself is a negative factor. But uncertainty is growing.
Potentially yes. Many immigrants now fear device searches, social media review, political screening, and AI-assisted immigration vetting when they travel with pending I-485 in 2026 under social media screening immigration concerns.
Related:
• USCIS Vetting Center High-Risk Countries and Social Media Screening
• Can USCIS Use AI to Scrutinize Your Immigration Case?
Potential consequences may include inability to return, visa denial, unlawful presence consequences, or pressure toward consular processing if your I-485 is denied while you travel with pending I-485 in 2026 leading to i-485 denial risks 2026.
Based on more than 30 years practicing immigration law, I expect increased CBP scrutiny, expanded social media vetting, broader discretionary review, more secondary inspections, and growing fear surrounding international travel when you travel with pending I-485 in 2026.
I also expect more immigrants seeking “immigration risk assessments,” increased travel hesitation, and more litigation involving parole and adjustment denials under 2026 immigration changes.
These issues are rapidly reshaping immigration strategy nationwide and relate to adjustment of status discretion.
The new USCIS adjustment-of-status memo has fundamentally changed how immigrants think about international travel with pending I-485 in 2026.
For years, many immigrants assumed: “If I have Advance Parole, I can safely travel.” Now the calculation is far more complicated under uscis i-485 memo 2026 and i-485 advance parole reentry concerns.
Under the administration’s new immigration environment, discretionary scrutiny is increasing, immigration “risk assessments” are expanding, and CBP inspections may become more aggressive.
That does not mean immigrants should panic. But it does mean travel decisions now require far more strategic analysis than before when you travel with pending I-485 in 2026.
By Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney with More Than 30 Years of Experience
Many immigrants are now asking a question that would have sounded like science fiction only a few years ago: “Is artificial intelligence reviewing my immigration case?”
That fear has intensified dramatically after the Trump administration’s new USCIS adjustment-of-status memo, expanding DHS artificial intelligence programs, increased social media vetting, and growing reports of automated immigration screening systems.
Today, many immigrants worry USCIS AI I-485 2026 tools may be used to flag applications, identify inconsistencies, generate RFEs, analyze social media, detect “risk factors,” or recommend deeper scrutiny of green card applicants under USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 systems.
Those concerns have become even more intense following the new USCIS I-485 memo issued in May 2026 emphasizing that adjustment of status is discretionary. The memo repeatedly describes adjustment as an “extraordinary act of grace.”
That language has alarmed immigration lawyers nationwide because it suggests broader discretionary review, increased scrutiny, more RFEs, more NOIDs, and potentially more adjustment denials when AI reviewing immigration case processes are involved.
This comprehensive guide explains whether USCIS actually uses AI, how AI may affect immigration adjudications, what the DHS AI Use Case Inventory reveals, how AI may impact I-485 cases, what risks immigrants should understand, and what applicants should do now regarding USCIS AI I-485 2026.
Richard Herman Discusses the New USCIS Memo on NPR This Week
Richard Herman Discusses the New USCIS Memo on NPR This Week
Listen here:
• Ideastream Public Media / NPR – Trump Administration Changes Rules to Obtain Green Cards
• NPR Illinois – Trump Administration Changes Rules to Obtain Green Cards
• Texas Public Radio / NPR – Trump Administration Changes Rules to Obtain Green Cards
During the interviews, Richard Herman explained that immigrants are increasingly requesting “immigration risk assessments” before filing Form I-485, traveling internationally, changing employers, or making long-term immigration decisions.
The interviews discussed growing fears regarding discretionary denials, social media vetting, immigration “risk scoring,” and broader immigration scrutiny related to USCIS artificial intelligence 2026.
Richard Herman also recently discussed growing anxiety among international students in another NPR-affiliated interview: WBUR / NPR – Immigration Lawyer Says International Students Are Nervous to Come Study in the U.S.
In that interview, Herman explained that many students are now deeply worried about social media review, immigration vetting, and AI reviewing immigration case systems.
Yes — DHS and USCIS already use AI systems under USCIS AI I-485 2026. This is not speculation.
The Department of Homeland Security publicly maintains a DHS AI Use Case Inventory, listing numerous USCIS-related AI systems and automated review tools.
The DHS inventory specifically states that AI tools are used to “review existing records for adjudicating requests for immigration benefits.” The inventory also explains these systems help review records, identify aliases, process documents, and improve adjudication efficiency in USCIS AI I-485 2026 processes.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 – Adjustment of Status and Discretion.
The memo repeatedly emphasizes that adjustment of status is discretionary and states that adjustment is an “extraordinary act of grace.”
Official USCIS guidance:
• USCIS Policy Manual – Adjustment of Status Discretion
Immigration lawyers nationwide fear the memo may lead to more RFEs, broader discretionary review, increased scrutiny, and expanded “risk assessment” practices when combined with USCIS artificial intelligence 2026.
Related Herman Legal Group analysis:
This is the critical question regarding AI reviewing immigration case processes in USCIS AI I-485 2026.
At the moment, USCIS insists human officers still make final decisions. However, AI systems may increasingly help sort evidence, identify inconsistencies, flag anomalies, classify documents, prioritize cases, and trigger additional review.
The DHS inventory confirms USCIS uses AI to improve “reviewing existing records for adjudicating requests for immigration benefits.”
Legal analysts and immigration attorneys increasingly believe AI may affect intake review, fraud screening, document classification, and security vetting under USCIS artificial intelligence 2026.
Possibly. Some immigration lawyers have reported unusually fast RFEs, repetitive language patterns, and highly standardized deficiency notices related to USCIS AI I-485 2026.
However, USCIS has not publicly confirmed AI-generated RFEs. Some practitioners suspect AI-assisted drafting tools may already influence RFEs, intake screening, and document review workflows.
Potentially yes. Many immigrants now fear expanding social media review, online behavioral analysis, and digital “risk scoring” under AI reviewing immigration case systems.
These concerns have become central themes in Richard Herman’s NPR interviews this week. Immigration lawyers increasingly believe social media inconsistencies, political activity, online statements, or travel history may trigger additional scrutiny in USCIS AI I-485 2026.
Potentially. AI systems are especially effective at pattern detection, anomaly review, and identifying inconsistent data under USCIS AI I-485 2026.
That means marriage-based cases with inconsistent addresses, conflicting timelines, unusual filing patterns, or contradictory documentation may receive additional scrutiny.
Very likely. Employment-based immigration generates massive datasets, wage records, job classifications, and compliance information.
AI systems may increasingly review wage levels, employment history, LCA consistency, payroll records, and job descriptions in USCIS AI I-485 2026 processes.
Potentially yes. F-1 students increasingly fear SEVIS monitoring, CPT scrutiny, social media screening, and “risk assessment” analysis under AI reviewing immigration case tools.
Potential areas of AI-assisted scrutiny may include Day 1 CPT, employment authorization, attendance patterns, online activity, and status compliance.
Many lawyers fear opaque decision-making. The biggest concern is not simply AI itself. It is lack of transparency, inability to challenge algorithmic assumptions, and potential bias in automated screening systems.
Civil rights organizations have already raised concerns about DHS AI deployment, rights-impacting algorithms, and insufficient oversight.
As of now, USCIS says human officers still make final decisions. However, AI systems may increasingly influence how cases are prioritized, which applications receive deeper scrutiny, and what issues officers focus on reviewing under USCIS AI I-485 2026.
That distinction matters enormously.
Based on more than 30 years practicing immigration law, I expect expanded AI-assisted intake review, broader automated screening, increased social media vetting, more standardized RFEs, and greater use of “risk assessment” systems under USCIS AI I-485 2026.
I also expect more federal litigation, increasing due-process challenges, and growing public concern about algorithmic immigration enforcement.
These issues are rapidly becoming central themes in immigration law nationwide.
The question is no longer “Will AI affect immigration someday?” The reality is AI is already part of the immigration system under USCIS artificial intelligence 2026.
The bigger question now is how much influence these systems have, how transparent the process will be, and whether immigrants will receive meaningful due process protections when AI reviewing immigration case tools are active.
Under the new USCIS I-485 memo, discretionary scrutiny is increasing, “risk assessments” are expanding, and immigration adjudications may become more data-driven than ever before in USCIS AI I-485 2026.
For immigrants, preparation, consistency, and strategic planning now matter more than ever.
By Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney with More Than 30 Years of Experience
For decades, many couples believed marriage to a U.S. citizen was one of the safest and most reliable pathways to a green card. That assumption is now being questioned across the United States in 2026.
A new USCIS policy memorandum issued in May 2026 has triggered widespread fear among U.S. citizens married to immigrants, undocumented spouses, F-1 students, H-1B workers, mixed-status families, and marriage-based adjustment applicants nationwide under the new USCIS I-485 memo 2026.
The memo repeatedly emphasizes: adjustment of status is discretionary. That means: USCIS can deny a marriage-based green card application even if the marriage is real.
Now couples are asking: • Will marriage green cards 2026 become harder?
• Will USCIS deny more I-485 applications under the new memo?
• Will marriage interviews become more aggressive?
• Could USCIS force couples into consular processing?
• What evidence should married couples prepare now?
• Are Stokes interviews 2026 becoming more likely?
• What happens if USCIS denies adjustment?
These fears are understandable. Because immigration lawyers nationwide now expect:
• more RFEs
• more NOIDs
• broader discretionary review
• increased scrutiny of marriages
• Potentially more I-485 denials for marriage green cards 2026.
This article explains:
• what the new USCIS I-485 memo 2026 means for married couples.
• the biggest marriage-based green card risks in 2026
• how USCIS may apply discretionary review
• and what couples should do immediately.
This week, immigration attorney Richard Herman appeared on multiple NPR-affiliated programs discussing the administration’s new adjustment-of-status policies and the growing fear among green card applicants.
Listen here:
During the interviews, Richard Herman explained that immigrants and families are increasingly requesting “immigration risk assessments” before filing Form I-485, traveling internationally, changing employers, or deciding whether to remain in the United States.
The interviews focused heavily on discretionary denials, consular processing pressure, immigration “risk scoring,” and heightened scrutiny of adjustment-of-status applications. (NPR Illinois)
Richard Herman also recently discussed growing fear among international students and visa holders in another NPR-affiliated interview: WBUR / NPR – Immigration Lawyer Says International Students Are Nervous to Come Study in the U.S.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued:
The memo repeatedly states that adjustment of status is an “extraordinary act of grace.” USCIS emphasizes that adjustment is discretionary, approval is not automatic, and officers should conduct broader discretionary review. Official guidance appears in the USCIS Policy Manual – Adjustment of Status Discretion and on USCIS Form I-485.
The memo has alarmed immigration lawyers nationwide because it suggests that eligibility alone may no longer be enough, officers may apply broader “totality of circumstances” review, and consular processing may increasingly be viewed as the preferred pathway.
Potentially yes. While marriage-based green cards remain among the strongest immigration pathways, scrutiny is increasing dramatically under the new memo. USCIS officers are now encouraged to examine discretionary factors, immigration history, prior status violations, fraud indicators, and “positive equities” in every case.
Many immigration lawyers expect more marriage interviews, more Requests for Evidence (RFEs), more Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), and more Stokes interviews in the months ahead. The shift does not eliminate marriage green cards, but it does mean couples must prepare more thoroughly than in previous years.
Marriage-based immigration has always been a major enforcement focus because USCIS aggressively investigates marriage fraud. Officers are trained to look for inconsistent answers during interviews, weak or contradictory documentation, signs of fake cohabitation, financial separation between spouses, or suspicious timelines in the relationship.
Official USCIS guidance on marriage-based green cards is available on the Green Card for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizen page.
A Stokes interview is a second-level marriage interview in which the spouses are separated and questioned independently about their relationship. USCIS officers then compare the answers to identify inconsistencies that may indicate fraud.
Common topics include daily routines, finances, living arrangements, family relationships, vacations, and intimate details of the marriage. Background on this process is available in the Stokes Interview Overview.
Many immigration lawyers now fear that Stokes interviews could increase substantially under the new memo as officers apply broader discretionary review to marriage-based I-485 cases.
Several specific risks are likely to draw more attention from USCIS officers.
Weak Relationship Evidence — Couples with limited documentation may face greater scrutiny. Strong evidence now includes joint bank accounts, shared leases or mortgages, insurance policies listing both spouses, joint tax returns, timestamped photographs spanning the relationship, travel records showing time spent together, and affidavits from friends and family who can attest to the bona fides of the marriage.
Prior Immigration Violations — Officers will closely examine any overstays, unauthorized employment, periods of unlawful presence, SEVIS violations, or prior visa fraud allegations. Even minor past issues can become significant when viewed through the lens of broader discretionary review.
Social Media Review — Many immigrants fear expanding social media vetting, political screening, and online activity analysis. These concerns were specifically discussed during Richard Herman’s NPR interviews this week. Inconsistent or inflammatory posts can now be used as evidence in discretionary determinations.
Consular Processing Pressure — The memo repeatedly suggests that consular processing is the “ordinary” immigration pathway. Many lawyers fear USCIS may increasingly deny adjustment of status and effectively push applicants abroad. For some couples this could be devastating, as leaving the United States may trigger unlawful presence bars, visa denials, administrative processing, or prolonged family separation.
Official guidance: USCIS Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility
Discretionary Denials — This may be the biggest shift. The memo strongly suggests that even genuine marriages may still face discretionary denial. Officers may now evaluate immigration compliance history, humanitarian factors, criminal history, public statements, family equities, and the broader “totality of circumstances” when deciding whether to approve a marriage-based I-485.
Potentially safer categories may include long-term marriages, couples with U.S. citizen children, applicants with strong lawful immigration history, immigrants with compelling humanitarian equities, and couples with extensive joint documentation built over many years.
However, no category appears completely immune from increased scrutiny under the new memo. Every marriage-based case now requires careful preparation and strategic presentation of positive equities.
Potential consequences include loss of work authorization, accrual of unlawful presence, issuance of a Notice to Appear (NTA), immigration court proceedings, or effective pressure toward consular processing.
Related: What Happens If Your Adjustment of Status Is Denied? and USCIS Policy Manual – Notices to Appear
Married couples should begin by strengthening their relationship evidence. This means gathering financial records such as joint bank statements and tax returns, shared leases or property documents, insurance policies, timestamped photographs documenting the relationship over time, travel history showing time spent together, and affidavits from friends and family who can speak credibly about the marriage.
It is also essential to carefully review your full immigration history for any potential issues, including prior overstays, unauthorized employment, periods of unlawful presence, SEVIS violations, or past visa problems. Identifying these issues early allows couples to prepare explanations or waivers if needed.
Couples should preserve all documentation, including previous tax returns, USCIS filings, approval notices, and proof of lawful status. Organized records help demonstrate compliance and positive equities during any future interview or discretionary review.
Avoid international travel without first obtaining legal advice. Travel risks have increased significantly under the new memo, and departure could trigger unlawful presence bars or complicate an already pending I-485.
Finally, prepare thoroughly for more aggressive interviews. Couples should anticipate detailed questioning about their relationship, be ready to present organized documentation, and understand that Stokes interviews may become more common. Working with experienced counsel to conduct mock interviews can make a meaningful difference.
Based on more than 30 years practicing immigration law, I expect increased RFEs, more NOIDs, more Stokes interviews, broader discretionary review, and greater scrutiny of marriage evidence in the year ahead.
I also expect increased social media vetting, greater fear among mixed-status families, and more litigation challenging arbitrary or overly broad adjustment denials. These concerns are already reshaping immigration strategy nationwide.
By Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney with More Than 30 Years of Experience
International students across the United States are asking the same urgent question right now: “Can F-1 students still get green cards under the new USCIS memo?”
That fear exploded after USCIS issued a new adjustment-of-status policy memorandum in May 2026 emphasizing that adjustment of status is discretionary, approval is not automatic, and officers should conduct broader discretionary review of Form I-485 applications.
The memo has created enormous anxiety among F-1 students, OPT and STEM OPT workers, Day 1 CPT students, H-1B applicants, employment-based immigrants, and marriage-based green card applicants. Many students now fear I-485 denials, visa revocations, social media vetting, SEVIS scrutiny, travel risks, or being forced into consular processing abroad.
For many international students, the question is no longer “How do I get a green card?” It is now “Will USCIS still allow me to adjust status inside the United States?”
This article explains whether F-1 students can still get green cards in 2026, what the new USCIS memo means for international students, who may be most at risk, common I-485 denial risks, how SEVIS and status issues may affect adjustment, and what students should do immediately.
This week, immigration attorney Richard Herman appeared on multiple NPR-affiliated programs discussing the administration’s new adjustment-of-status policies and the growing fear among immigrants, including international students.
Listen here:
During the interviews, Richard Herman explained that many immigrants are now requesting “immigration risk assessments” before filing Form I-485, changing status, traveling internationally, or making long-term immigration decisions. The interviews focused heavily on discretionary denials, social media vetting, increased immigration scrutiny, and pressure toward consular processing.
Richard Herman also recently discussed growing fear among international students in another NPR-affiliated interview: WBUR / NPR – Immigration Lawyer Says International Students Are Nervous to Come Study in the U.S. In that interview, Herman explained that many students are now deeply worried about immigration “risk scoring,” social media review, visa denials, and future green card eligibility.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 – Adjustment of Status and Discretion.
The memo repeatedly emphasizes that adjustment of status is discretionary and states that adjustment is an “extraordinary act of grace.” The memo strongly suggests that eligibility alone may not be enough, officers should evaluate discretionary equities, and consular processing is the “ordinary” immigration pathway.
Official USCIS guidance:
• USCIS Policy Manual – Adjustment of Status Discretion
Yes — many F-1 students can still obtain green cards. However, scrutiny is increasing dramatically under the new memo.
F-1 students may still pursue green cards through marriage to a U.S. citizen, employment sponsorship, EB-2 NIW, EB-1 extraordinary ability, asylum, family sponsorship, or other immigration pathways.
However, USCIS officers may now more aggressively review maintenance of status, unlawful employment, CPT/OPT compliance, SEVIS history, immigrant intent, social media activity, and prior immigration filings.
F-1 visas are single-intent visas. That means students must generally maintain an intention to study temporarily and eventually depart the United States. This creates tension when students later pursue H-1B, PERM, marriage-based adjustment, or employment-based green cards.
Under the new memo, many lawyers fear USCIS officers may scrutinize whether the student truly maintained F-1 intent, prior statements made at visa interviews, or conduct inconsistent with student status.
Unauthorized Employment — Unauthorized work remains one of the biggest risks. Potential issues may include off-campus employment, unauthorized internships, CPT abuse, or unauthorized freelancing. Official guidance: USCIS Students and Employment.
SEVIS Problems — Potentially dangerous issues include terminated SEVIS records, status violations, unauthorized course loads, or enrollment gaps. Related: F-1 Student Visa Resources.
Day 1 CPT Scrutiny — Many lawyers expect increased USCIS scrutiny regarding Day 1 CPT, hybrid schools, attendance compliance, and employment authorization legitimacy.
Social Media Vetting — Students increasingly fear social media review, political screening, and online activity analysis. These concerns were specifically discussed in Richard Herman’s NPR interviews this week. Related: USCIS Vetting Center High-Risk Countries and Social Media Screening.
Immigrant Intent Concerns — USCIS officers may increasingly examine prior visa applications, travel history, social media, and statements suggesting immigrant intent during F-1 status.
Travel Risks — International travel may now carry significantly greater risk for students with pending I-485 applications, status questions, or prior immigration issues. Many lawyers now recommend individualized legal review before travel.
Potentially yes. This is one of the biggest fears surrounding the new memo. The memo strongly suggests that eligibility alone may no longer be enough. USCIS officers may now weigh discretion, compliance history, credibility, positive equities, and “totality of circumstances.”
Potentially yes. Students who may receive more favorable discretionary consideration could include physicians, STEM researchers, AI professionals, healthcare workers, national-interest applicants, and immigrants with strong humanitarian equities.
However, no category appears completely immune from increased scrutiny under the new memo.
Not directly. However, denial of adjustment may effectively leave consular processing as the only remaining option. For some students, this may be extremely dangerous because leaving the United States could potentially trigger unlawful presence bars, visa denials, administrative processing, or inability to return.
F-1 students should begin by carefully reviewing their full immigration history for any status gaps, SEVIS problems, unauthorized work, or inconsistencies. Early identification of issues allows for better preparation and strategy.
It is also essential to preserve all documentation, including I-20s, SEVIS records, CPT/OPT approvals, transcripts, employment records, and previous immigration filings. Organized records help demonstrate compliance and positive equities.
Students should avoid international travel without first obtaining legal advice, as travel risks have increased significantly under the new memo. Departure can trigger serious consequences for those with pending applications or prior issues.
Strengthening positive equities is equally important. Students should prepare evidence showing academic achievement, national-interest contributions, humanitarian hardship, community involvement, and good moral character.
Finally, speak with an experienced immigration attorney. Strategic planning matters more than ever under the current policy environment.
Based on more than 30 years practicing immigration law, I expect increased RFEs, more NOIDs, expanded social media vetting, greater scrutiny of CPT/OPT history, and broader discretionary review of student adjustment cases.
I also expect increased fear among international students, more “risk assessment” consultations, and increased federal litigation challenging arbitrary denials.
By Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney with More Than 30 Years of Experience
The immigration landscape changed dramatically in May 2026. A new USCIS policy memorandum now warns that adjustment of status is an “extraordinary” discretionary benefit — not an entitlement. That memo, officially titled USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 – Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, has triggered widespread fear among H-1B professionals, F-1 students, marriage-based green card applicants, employment-based immigrants, undocumented spouses, physicians, tech workers, and families with pending Form I-485 applications.
Many immigrants are now asking: “Can USCIS deny my green card even if I qualify?” “What are the biggest I-485 denial risks now?” “Will USCIS force me into consular processing?” and “What evidence should I prepare immediately?”
The answer is clear: discretionary scrutiny is increasing. While the memo does not formally change the law, immigration lawyers nationwide believe USCIS officers may now issue more RFEs, more NOIDs, deny more adjustment applications, and apply far more aggressive discretionary analysis.
This article explains the top 10 I-485 denial risks in 2026, how USCIS may apply the new memo, and what immigrants should do immediately to reduce risk.
This week, immigration attorney Richard Herman appeared on multiple NPR-affiliated programs discussing the administration’s new adjustment-of-status policies and the growing risks facing immigrants with pending I-485 applications.
Listen here:
During the interviews, Richard Herman explained that immigrants are increasingly requesting “immigration risk assessments” before filing I-485 applications, changing employers, traveling internationally, or deciding whether to remain in the United States. The interviews discussed growing concerns about discretionary denials, consular processing pressure, social media vetting, and increased scrutiny of immigration histories.
Richard Herman also recently discussed immigration fear among international students and visa holders in another NPR-affiliated interview: WBUR / NPR – Immigration Lawyer Says International Students Are Nervous to Come Study in the U.S.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued PM-602-0199 emphasizing that adjustment of status is discretionary, consular processing is the “ordinary” pathway, and adjustment inside the U.S. should be viewed as extraordinary relief.
The memo repeatedly states that adjustment of status is a matter of “administrative grace.” That language has alarmed immigration lawyers because it suggests officers may deny more cases, eligibility alone may no longer be enough, and applicants may need to prove stronger positive equities.
Official USCIS guidance:
• USCIS Policy Manual – Adjustment of Status Discretion
1. Unlawful Presence One of the greatest risks remains unlawful presence. If USCIS denies adjustment and the applicant leaves the United States, this may trigger 3-year bars, 10-year bars, or other inadmissibility issues. Official guidance: USCIS Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility. Related: I-601A Provisional Waiver Resources.
2. Unauthorized Employment The new memo specifically emphasizes immigration compliance history, lawful conduct, and violations of status. Unauthorized employment may now receive much heavier scrutiny. This is especially dangerous for F-1 students, B-1/B-2 visitors, and applicants with undocumented work history.
3. Status Violations USCIS officers are now being instructed to review maintenance of status, overstays, parole compliance, and conduct inconsistent with visa purpose. Potential risks include SEVIS violations, benching, unauthorized study, or employment gaps. Related: F-1 Student Visa Resources and H-1B Immigration Resources.
4. Fraud or Misrepresentation The memo repeatedly references fraud and misrepresentation concerns as serious negative discretionary factors. Potential issues include inconsistent applications, false statements, sham marriages, fake employment, or visa fraud allegations. Even old allegations may now receive renewed scrutiny.
5. Failure to Depart the United States One of the most controversial aspects of the memo is its emphasis on “failure to depart.” USCIS appears to suggest that remaining in the U.S. to pursue adjustment rather than consular processing may itself become a negative discretionary factor. This represents a major philosophical shift in adjustment adjudications.
6. Weak Positive Equities The memo strongly implies that absence of negative factors is not enough. Applicants may now need affirmative evidence showing humanitarian concerns, strong family ties, national-interest contributions, community involvement, or exceptional hardship. Potential evidence may include medical records, psychological evaluations, caregiving responsibilities, volunteer work, and proof of community contribution.
7. Social Media and Security Vetting Many immigrants fear expanding social media review, AI-driven vetting, and “risk assessment” screening. These concerns were specifically discussed in Richard Herman’s NPR interviews this week. Related: USCIS Vetting Center High-Risk Countries and Social Media Screening.
8. Employment History Problems Employment-based applicants may face increased scrutiny regarding wage levels, layoffs, benching, job duties, PERM compliance, and maintenance of H-1B or L-1 status. Even dual-intent visa holders may no longer be automatically viewed favorably.
9. Criminal Arrests or Conduct Issues Even where no conviction exists, USCIS officers may now scrutinize arrests, police reports, dismissed charges, or allegations involving moral character. Adjustment remains discretionary, meaning officers may consider the “totality of circumstances.”
10. Consular Processing Risks After Denial If USCIS denies adjustment, many immigrants may effectively be pushed toward consular processing abroad. For some immigrants, leaving the U.S. may trigger unlawful presence bars, administrative processing, visa denials, or prolonged family separation. This is one of the greatest fears now facing I-485 applicants.
Potentially safer groups may include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, applicants with long lawful history, dual-intent visa holders, applicants with strong humanitarian equities, physicians, engineers, researchers, and immigrants with strong community ties.
However, no category appears completely immune from increased scrutiny under the new memo.
Immigrants should begin by carefully reviewing their entire immigration history for status gaps, unlawful presence, inconsistent filings, or prior violations. Early identification of potential issues allows for better preparation and strategy.
It is also essential to preserve all documentation, including pay records, tax returns, immigration filings, I-94 records, approval notices, and hardship evidence. Organized records help demonstrate compliance and positive equities.
Strengthening positive equities is equally important. Immigrants should prepare evidence showing family unity, community contribution, humanitarian hardship, and good moral character.
Avoid international travel without first obtaining legal advice. Travel risks may now be increasing substantially under the new memo.
Finally, consult an experienced immigration attorney. Strategic planning now matters more than ever.
Based on more than 30 years practicing immigration law, I expect more RFEs, more NOIDs, increased discretionary denials, greater pressure toward consular processing, expanded social media vetting, and significant federal litigation challenging arbitrary denials.
I also expect inconsistent adjudications across field offices, greater fear among employment-based immigrants, and increased uncertainty for H-1B workers and international students.
Can USCIS deny my I-485 even if I qualify? Yes. Adjustment of status is discretionary.
What is the biggest I-485 denial risk right now? Potentially unlawful presence, status violations, fraud concerns, or weak discretionary equities.
Are H-1B workers safer? Potentially safer than single-intent visa holders, but not immune from scrutiny.
Could USCIS force immigrants into consular processing? Not directly. But denial of adjustment may effectively leave consular processing as the only remaining pathway.
Are marriage-based green card cases safer? Possibly, but increased scrutiny may still occur.
Will USCIS issue more RFEs and NOIDs now? Most immigration lawyers expect yes.
The new USCIS I-485 memo may become one of the most important immigration policy changes in years. The biggest takeaway is this: eligibility alone may no longer be enough. USCIS officers are now being encouraged to scrutinize immigration history, evaluate discretionary equities, and apply broader “totality of circumstances” analysis.
For immigrants with pending I-485 applications, preparation now matters more than ever.
If you are concerned about I-485 denial risks, RFEs, NOIDs, unlawful presence, consular processing, H-1B strategy, social media vetting, or immigration discretion, schedule a confidential consultation with Herman Legal Group today.
By Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney with More Than 30 Years of Experience
The new USCIS adjustment-of-status memo issued in May 2026 may become one of the most consequential immigration policy shifts in years. But one phrase in particular is now creating panic among immigrants, employers, universities, and immigration lawyers nationwide: “Extraordinary circumstances.”
The problem is that USCIS has not clearly defined what that means. The new policy memorandum repeatedly emphasizes that adjustment of status is discretionary, approval is not automatic, and applicants must merit a favorable exercise of discretion. The memo repeatedly describes adjustment of status as an “extraordinary act of grace.”
Now immigrants across the United States are asking: What exactly counts as extraordinary circumstances? Will USCIS deny my I-485 if my case is “ordinary”? Are H-1B workers at risk? Are marriage green card cases safer? Will USCIS force more immigrants into consular processing? What evidence should applicants prepare now?
These fears are understandable. Right now, nobody fully knows how USCIS officers will apply this standard. This article explains what the new USCIS memo says, what “extraordinary circumstances” may mean, who may be safest, who may be most vulnerable, what evidence immigrants should prepare, and what immigration lawyers are predicting next.
The uncertainty surrounding the new USCIS memo has become national news. This week, immigration attorney Richard Herman appeared on NPR-affiliated programming discussing how the administration’s new adjustment-of-status policies may affect H-1B workers, employment-based immigrants, marriage-based green card applicants, F-1 students, and families with pending Form I-485 applications.
Listen here:
During the interviews, Richard Herman explained that many immigrants are increasingly requesting “immigration risk assessments” before filing adjustment of status, changing employers, traveling internationally, or deciding whether to remain in the United States. The NPR interviews highlighted growing fear that the administration may issue more discretionary denials, pressure immigrants toward consular processing, expand social media vetting, and scrutinize immigration histories more aggressively.
Richard Herman also recently discussed similar immigration fears affecting international students and visa holders in another NPR-affiliated interview: WBUR / NPR – Immigration Lawyer Says International Students Are Nervous to Come Study in the U.S.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 – Adjustment of Status and Discretion.
The memo emphasizes that adjustment of status is discretionary. It repeatedly states that approval of Form I-485 is not automatic, even if the applicant appears legally eligible. Official USCIS discretionary guidance is available in the USCIS Policy Manual – Adjustment of Status Discretion.
The memo’s language has alarmed immigration lawyers nationwide because it signals broader discretionary review, increased scrutiny, more RFEs, more NOIDs, and potentially more denials.
Because USCIS never clearly defines it, that creates enormous uncertainty. Immigration lawyers now fear USCIS officers could apply wildly inconsistent standards depending on field office, officer discretion, political climate, or internal DHS guidance.
Many attorneys worry this language could become a tool for broader denials, arbitrary adjudications, or pressure toward consular processing abroad. That uncertainty itself is now reshaping immigration strategy nationwide.
At the moment, nobody knows with certainty. However, immigration lawyers expect USCIS may increasingly favor applicants with strong humanitarian equities, exceptional economic value, compelling hardship, family unity concerns, national interest contributions, or extraordinary community ties.
Potential examples may include severe medical hardship (serious illness, disability, caregiving responsibilities, or lack of treatment abroad), family separation concerns (U.S. citizen children, disabled family members, dependent spouses, or vulnerable relatives), national interest contributions (physicians, engineers, AI researchers, scientists, healthcare workers, and highly skilled H-1B professionals), humanitarian concerns (dangerous country conditions, war, persecution, political instability, or humanitarian emergencies abroad), and exceptional community ties (volunteer service, religious involvement, local leadership, charitable activity, or long-term residence in the United States).
Recent DHS statements suggest immigrants providing economic or national-interest value may still receive favorable discretionary treatment.
Potentially yes. That is one of the biggest fears surrounding the memo. Many immigrants now worry: “What if my case is legally valid but not extraordinary?” This uncertainty is especially alarming for H-1B workers, marriage-based applicants, F-1 students, and employment-based immigrants with pending I-485 applications.
Yes — especially in employment-based green card cases. Many H-1B workers already face layoffs, retrogression, long green card backlogs, RFEs, and wage scrutiny. Now they also fear discretionary denials, employment-history scrutiny, and pressure toward consular processing.
Possibly. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens may still remain among the safest categories. However, no category appears completely immune from increased scrutiny. Marriage-based applicants should carefully prepare relationship evidence, hardship evidence, financial documentation, and discretionary equities.
Potentially yes. USCIS cannot literally force immigrants to leave the United States. However, denial of adjustment may effectively leave consular processing as the only remaining option. For some immigrants, this may be extremely dangerous. Leaving the U.S. could potentially trigger unlawful presence bars, visa denials, administrative processing, or prolonged separation.
Official USCIS unlawful presence guidance: USCIS Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility
This is critical. Applicants should begin gathering evidence showing positive discretionary factors. Potential evidence may include family evidence (marriage records, birth certificates, caregiving evidence, dependency documentation), financial evidence (tax returns, employment records, business ownership, property ownership), humanitarian evidence (medical records, psychological evaluations, hardship reports, country conditions evidence), community evidence (volunteer service, religious involvement, leadership roles, local contributions), and immigration compliance evidence (I-94 records, approval notices, lawful maintenance of status, prior immigration filings).
Based on more than 30 years practicing immigration law, I expect increased RFEs, more NOIDs, inconsistent discretionary standards, broader review of immigration history, expanded social media vetting, and increased federal litigation challenging arbitrary denials.
I also expect growing fear among H-1B workers, increased concern among international students, and more immigrants seeking legal “risk assessments” before filing I-485 applications.
[H2] What Should Immigrants Do Right Now?
Immigrants should begin by carefully reviewing their immigration history for status gaps, unauthorized employment, inconsistencies, or prior immigration problems. It is also essential to preserve all documentation, including tax returns, immigration approvals, employment records, and hardship evidence.
Strengthening positive equities is equally important. Positive discretionary evidence may matter more than ever. Finally, speak with an experienced immigration attorney. Strategic planning now matters enormously.
What does “extraordinary circumstances” mean in the new USCIS memo? USCIS has not clearly defined the phrase. Immigration lawyers believe it may involve strong humanitarian, family, economic, or national-interest factors.
Can USCIS deny my I-485 even if I qualify? Yes. Adjustment of status is discretionary.
Are H-1B workers at risk under the new memo? Potentially yes, especially where there are layoffs, status violations, or employment inconsistencies.
Are marriage-based green card cases safer? Possibly, but increased scrutiny may still occur.
Could USCIS force immigrants into consular processing? Not directly, but denial of adjustment may leave consular processing as the only remaining option.
Should immigrants leave the U.S. for consular processing? That depends entirely on the individual case. For some immigrants, departure may trigger serious immigration consequences.
The biggest problem with the new USCIS memo may not be what it says. It may be what it does not say. Right now, immigrants, employers, universities, and immigration lawyers are all asking the same question: “What exactly counts as extraordinary circumstances?”
Until USCIS provides clearer guidance, uncertainty itself may become one of the administration’s most powerful immigration tools. That is why preparation, documentation, strategic planning, and experienced legal guidance now matter more than ever.
If you are concerned about how the new USCIS I-485 memo may affect your case, schedule a confidential consultation with Herman Legal Group today.
By Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney with More Than 30 Years of Experience
H-1B professionals across the United States are asking the same urgent question right now: “Is it still safe to file adjustment of status?”
That fear exploded after the Trump administration released a new USCIS policy memorandum emphasizing that adjustment of status is discretionary, approval is not automatic, and many applicants may instead be expected to pursue consular processing abroad.
The memo has caused widespread anxiety among H-1B workers, physicians, engineers, tech professionals, researchers, F-1 students transitioning to H-1B, and employment-based green card applicants with pending Form I-485 applications. Many fear increased denials, RFEs, NOIDs, delays, or being pressured to leave the United States for consular processing.
For H-1B workers already facing layoffs, long green card backlogs, visa uncertainty, and retrogression, the new USCIS memo may represent one of the most significant immigration policy shifts in years.
This article explains whether H-1B workers should still file I-485, who may be most at risk, why adjustment of status may still be safer, what the new memo means, and what employment-based immigrants should do now.
This week, immigration attorney Richard Herman appeared on NPR-affiliated programming discussing the administration’s new adjustment-of-status policies and the growing risks facing employment-based immigrants.
Listen here:
In the interviews, Richard Herman discussed the new USCIS adjustment-of-status memo, risks to H-1B professionals, discretionary denials, pressure toward consular processing, and the uncertainty now facing employment-based immigrants.
Herman explained that many H-1B workers are now requesting detailed “immigration risk assessments” before filing Form I-485, changing employers, traveling internationally, or making long-term career decisions. The NPR interviews also explored growing fears among international students, skilled workers, physicians, and technology professionals who worry the administration’s new policies may disrupt decades of established adjustment-of-status practice.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 – Adjustment of Status and Discretion.
The memo emphasizes that adjustment of status is discretionary. It repeatedly states that adjustment of status is an “extraordinary act of grace.” This language has alarmed immigration lawyers nationwide because it signals more aggressive scrutiny, increased discretionary denials, and potentially greater pressure toward consular processing abroad.
Official USCIS discretionary guidance is available in the USCIS Policy Manual – Adjustment of Status Discretion.
Recent national reporting suggests the administration may increasingly favor consular processing over adjustment of status for many applicants.
H-1B workers already face extraordinary immigration uncertainty because of retrogression, PERM delays, layoffs, wage scrutiny, RFEs, and long employment-based green card backlogs.
Now many fear USCIS officers may more aggressively scrutinize maintenance of status, prior employment history, wage levels, job changes, benching, unauthorized employment, or technical status violations.
Many employment-based immigrants now worry: “Could USCIS deny my I-485 even if I qualify?” Unfortunately, yes. That is now one of the central concerns surrounding the memo.
Adjustment of status allows eligible immigrants already inside the United States to apply for permanent residency without leaving the country. Official USCIS guidance is available on USCIS Form I-485 and the Adjustment of Status Overview.
For many H-1B workers, adjustment of status has historically been the safest option because it may avoid unlawful presence triggers, reduce family separation, permit work authorization, allow Advance Parole travel, and avoid risky consular interviews abroad.
Potentially, yes. USCIS cannot literally force someone to leave the United States. However, USCIS can deny adjustment, refuse discretionary approval, or make consular processing the only remaining option. That is why many immigration lawyers are deeply concerned about the administration’s new policy direction.
For some immigrants, leaving the United States can trigger unlawful presence bars, administrative processing, visa denials, lengthy delays, or inability to return. Official USCIS unlawful presence guidance is available at USCIS Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility.
Potential issues may include prior status gaps, unauthorized employment, old visa violations, or inconsistencies in immigration history. Some applicants may also face security checks, social media vetting, or enhanced screening abroad. Related: USCIS Vetting Center High-Risk Countries and Social Media Screening
Potentially higher-risk categories may include workers with layoffs or employment gaps, prior status violations, unauthorized employment, inconsistent filings, multiple employers, benching issues, or prior denials. USCIS officers may now scrutinize these issues much more aggressively.
Possibly. Some recent DHS statements suggest that immigrants who provide economic benefit, national interest value, or high-skilled labor may still receive favorable discretionary treatment. This could potentially help physicians, engineers, researchers, AI professionals, and highly compensated H-1B workers.
However, the standards remain extremely unclear. That uncertainty itself is now driving fear throughout the H-1B community.
For many immigrants: yes. Adjustment of status may still be safer than consular processing. However, strategy matters more than ever.
Before filing, H-1B workers should carefully evaluate maintenance of status, prior immigration history, unlawful presence concerns, travel risks, and long-term immigration strategy. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.
This is critical. Employment-based applicants should organize pay records, tax returns, LCAs, I-797 approvals, employment verification letters, W-2s, immigration filings, and evidence of lawful maintenance of status.
Applicants should also strengthen positive equities, community ties, humanitarian evidence, and hardship documentation.
Based on more than 30 years practicing immigration law, I expect increased RFEs, broader discretionary review, more NOIDs, more scrutiny of employment history, and increased pressure toward consular processing.
I also expect growing federal litigation, inconsistent USCIS adjudications, and expanded social media and security vetting. These issues are already generating widespread concern among immigration lawyers, employers, universities, and multinational companies.
H-1B workers should begin by carefully reviewing their immigration history for status gaps, benching, unauthorized employment, or inconsistencies. It is also essential to preserve all documentation, including pay records, approval notices, tax returns, and immigration filings.
Avoid international travel without first obtaining legal advice. Travel risks may now be increasing. Strategic timing may become increasingly important under the new policy environment. Finally, speak with an experienced immigration attorney. The new memo creates enormous uncertainty, and legal strategy matters more than ever.
Should H-1B holders avoid filing I-485? Not necessarily. For many immigrants, adjustment of status may still be safer than consular processing.
Can USCIS deny an I-485 even if the applicant qualifies? Yes. Adjustment of status is discretionary.
Are H-1B workers now at greater risk? Potentially yes, especially where there are status violations, layoffs, or documentation issues.
Could USCIS force H-1B workers into consular processing? Not directly, but denial of adjustment may effectively leave consular processing as the only remaining pathway.
Are highly skilled workers safer? Possibly. DHS statements suggest applicants providing economic benefit or national interest value may receive more favorable treatment.
Should H-1B workers travel internationally right now? That depends on the individual case. Many applicants should seek legal advice before international travel.
The new USCIS adjustment-of-status memo has fundamentally changed the conversation surrounding employment-based immigration. For many H-1B workers, the question is no longer simply “When will my priority date become current?” It is now “Will USCIS still allow me to adjust status inside the United States?”
That uncertainty is reshaping immigration strategy nationwide. At the same time, panic is not the answer. Many H-1B workers may still qualify successfully for adjustment of status. But preparation, documentation, and strategic planning now matter more than ever.
If you are an H-1B worker concerned about how the new USCIS memo may affect your green card plans, schedule a confidential consultation with Herman Legal Group today.
By Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney with More Than 30 Years of Experience
One of the biggest fears immigrants now have under the Trump administration’s new immigration policies is this: “Can USCIS force me to leave the United States to get my green card?”
That fear is growing rapidly after the release of the new USCIS policy memorandum: USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 – Adjustment of Status and Discretion.
The memo has alarmed H-1B workers, F-1 students, marriage-based green card applicants, undocumented spouses, employment-based immigrants, and families with pending Form I-485 applications. Many immigrants now worry USCIS may deny adjustment of status, refuse to exercise discretion favorably, and effectively push applicants toward consular processing abroad.
In many cases, leaving the United States can be extremely dangerous from an immigration standpoint. For some immigrants, departing the U.S. could trigger 3-year bars, 10-year bars, unlawful presence penalties, visa denials, administrative processing, or prolonged family separation.
This article explains whether USCIS can force consular processing, what the new 2026 memo means, who is most at risk, why adjustment of status is often safer, and what immigrants should do now.
The growing fear surrounding the new USCIS adjustment-of-status memo has now become a national news story. This week, immigration attorney Richard Herman appeared on NPR-affiliated programming discussing how the administration’s new discretionary policies could dramatically affect pending I-485 applicants, H-1B professionals, F-1 students, marriage-based green card applicants, and immigrants considering consular processing.
Listen here:
During the interview, Richard Herman explained that many immigrants are increasingly worried USCIS may deny adjustment-of-status applications on discretionary grounds, issue more RFEs and NOIDs, and effectively pressure immigrants into consular processing abroad.
Herman warned that for many immigrants, leaving the United States may be legally dangerous. Potential consequences may include unlawful presence bars, visa denials, prolonged family separation, administrative processing, or inability to return. The NPR interviews also discussed the administration’s growing focus on immigration “risk assessments,” social media vetting, discretionary denials, and heightened scrutiny of immigration histories.
Richard Herman has also discussed similar themes in recent interviews regarding international students and immigration enforcement uncertainty: WBUR / NPR – Immigration Lawyer Says International Students Are Nervous to Come Study in the U.S.
Technically, no — but practically, sometimes yes. USCIS cannot literally order someone to leave the United States simply because they filed an I-485 application. However, USCIS can deny adjustment of status, refuse discretionary approval, issue Notices to Appear (NTAs), or make adjustment impossible.
In many situations, that leaves immigrants with only one remaining pathway: immigrant visa processing through a U.S. consulate abroad. That is why many immigration attorneys are deeply concerned about the administration’s new adjustment-of-status policies.
Consular processing means applying for an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate outside the United States. Instead of receiving a green card through Form I-485 adjustment of status, the immigrant leaves the U.S., attends an interview abroad, and seeks reentry as a permanent resident.
Official USCIS information: Adjustment of Status vs. Consular Processing Official State Department immigrant visa information: U.S. Department of State – Immigrant Visas
Because for many immigrants, leaving the United States may trigger serious immigration consequences. Potential risks include unlawful presence bars, prior removal order problems, visa denials, administrative processing, security checks, waivers, and being stranded abroad for months or years.
For some immigrants, departing the United States can trigger the 3-year or 10-year unlawful presence bars. Learn more: USCIS Unlawful Presence Bars and I-601A Provisional Waiver Resources.
The May 2026 USCIS memo repeatedly emphasizes that adjustment of status is discretionary. The memo states that Adjustment is an “extraordinary act of grace.” That language has alarmed immigration lawyers nationwide because it signals stricter scrutiny, broader discretionary denials, and potentially greater pressure toward consular processing.
Read the memo: USCIS PM-602-0199
For many immigrants, adjustment of status inside the United States is safer because it may avoid unlawful presence triggers, reduce family separation, allow work authorization, permit Advance Parole travel, and provide stronger procedural protections.
Adjustment applicants may also avoid dangerous consular uncertainty, local embassy backlogs, or geopolitical instability abroad. Official USCIS adjustment guidance: USCIS Form I-485
The highest-risk categories may include immigrants with unlawful presence, prior visa overstays, unauthorized employment, status violations, immigration fraud allegations, criminal arrests, prior removal proceedings, multiple entries, or inconsistent filings.
Potentially vulnerable groups may include H-1B workers after layoffs, F-1 students with SEVIS issues, undocumented spouses, and immigrants with prior denials. Related: SEVIS Termination Risks for International Students, Marriage Green Card Resources, and H-1B Immigration Resources
Yes. This is one of the most important developments in the new memo. The memo strongly emphasizes that eligibility alone may not be enough. USCIS officers may now weigh discretion, equities, immigration history, credibility, compliance, and “favorable exercise of discretion.”
This could result in more RFEs, more NOIDs, and more discretionary denials. Official USCIS discretionary guidance: USCIS Policy Manual – Discretion
Potential consequences may include loss of work authorization, unlawful presence, removal proceedings, Notices to Appear, ICE referral, or pressure to depart the United States. Some immigrants may still have appeals, motions to reopen, federal litigation, waivers, or refiling options.
Yes. This is one of the greatest dangers. Immigrants who accrued significant unlawful presence before departing may trigger INA 212(a)(9)(B). Potential penalties include 3-year bars, 10-year bars, or permanent inadmissibility issues.
Official USCIS guidance: Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility
Some immigrants may require Form I-601 waivers or Form I-601A provisional waivers. Related: Extreme Hardship Waiver Resources and I-601A Provisional Waiver Guide
Based on more than 30 years practicing immigration law, I expect more discretionary denials, increased pressure toward consular processing, expanded social media vetting, more security-related delays, and increased immigrant fear regarding international travel.
I also expect more aggressive review of prior immigration history, broader “risk assessment” practices, and more federal litigation challenging arbitrary denials. These issues have increasingly become topics of national media coverage.
Immigrants should begin by carefully reviewing their immigration history for unlawful presence, prior visa overstays, status gaps, or prior removal orders. It is also essential to preserve all documentation, including tax returns, immigration filings, approval notices, pay records, and family evidence.
Do not leave the U.S. without legal advice. Departure could trigger severe immigration consequences. Build positive equities showing family unity, community contribution, humanitarian hardship, and good moral character. Finally, speak with an experienced immigration lawyer. The new memo creates enormous uncertainty, and strategic planning now matters more than ever.
Can USCIS legally force me to leave the U.S.? Not directly. But USCIS can deny adjustment of status, which may leave consular processing as the only remaining option.
Why is consular processing dangerous? Because leaving the U.S. can trigger unlawful presence bars, visa denials, or long-term separation.
Is adjustment of status safer? For many immigrants, yes. It often avoids unlawful presence triggers and allows processing inside the U.S.
Can USCIS deny my I-485 even if eligible? Yes. Adjustment of status is discretionary.
Can I travel internationally while my I-485 is pending? Possibly, but travel without proper authorization can be risky. Always obtain individualized legal advice first.
What if USCIS denies my adjustment case? You may still have options including motions, appeals, waivers, refiling, or federal litigation.
The new USCIS adjustment-of-status memo has fundamentally changed how many immigrants view green card processing. The greatest fear for many families is no longer simply “Will my case be delayed?” It is now “Will I be forced to leave the United States?”
For many immigrants, consular processing is not merely inconvenient — it may be legally dangerous. That is why strategic immigration planning has become more important than ever.
If you are concerned about how the new USCIS memo may affect your case or force you into consular processing, schedule a confidential consultation with Herman Legal Group today.
CLEVELAND (HEADQUARTER)
© Copyright 2025, HLG, LLC. All Rights Reserved
