USCIS Ends Most Telephonic Attorney Appearances: What the New Policy Means for Immigrants, Attorneys, and Access to Justice

Updated June 2026

Quick Answer

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

 

What Exactly Changed?

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

The policy affects:

Adjustment of Status Interviews

Including:

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

Naturalization Interviews

Including N-400 examinations involving:

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

Affirmative Asylum Interviews

The policy applies to interviews conducted by USCIS asylum offices.

NACARA Interviews

The policy also extends to certain NACARA proceedings.

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

What Has Not Changed?

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

That is not accurate.

Applicants still have the right to legal representation.

Attorneys may still:

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

The change concerns the method of participation.

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

What Are the “Limited Circumstances” Exceptions?

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

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

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

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

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

Circumstances That May Support a Remote Participation Request

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

Serious Medical Issues

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

Examples may include:

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

Supporting documentation from a treating physician may strengthen the request.

Disability Accommodations

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

Potential examples include:

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

Documentation supporting the accommodation request may be helpful.

Extraordinary Travel Burdens

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

Examples might include:

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

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

Specialized Counsel in High-Stakes Cases

Another potential argument involves highly specialized representation.

Examples may include:

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

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

Whether USCIS will accept this argument remains unclear.

Asylum Cases Involving Vulnerable Applicants

Certain affirmative asylum cases may present compelling circumstances.

Examples could include:

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

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

Emergencies Arising After Scheduling

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

Examples include:

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

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

 

How Should Attorneys Request an Exception?

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

Submit the Request Early

Do not wait until the day of the interview.

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

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

Make the Request in Writing

A written request creates documentation that may later become important.

The request should:

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

Emphasize Efficiency

This point may be particularly persuasive.

The request should explain that remote participation:

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

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

Cite Representation Rights

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

• 8 CFR § 292.5;
• 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).

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

Offer Alternative Formats

Do not limit the request to telephone participation.

Consider offering:

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

Flexibility may increase the likelihood of approval.

What If USCIS Denies the Request?

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

Potential steps may include:

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

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

Richard Herman’s Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

 

Immigration Law Has Long Recognized the Importance of Legal Representation

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

Federal Regulations Protect Representation Rights

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

The regulation provides:

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

Importantly, the regulation contemplates active participation by counsel.

Attorneys may:

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

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

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

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

USCIS Built an Entire System Around Attorney Representation

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

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

Whether the case involves:

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

USCIS has historically facilitated attorney participation rather than discouraged it.

An Important Historical Fact Most Commentators Have Missed

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

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

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

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

This creates an obvious question:

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

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

The Board of Immigration Appeals Has Long Recognized That Attorneys Matter

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

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

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

The significance of Lozada extends far beyond motions to reopen.

The case reflects a broader principle:

Attorney performance affects immigration outcomes.

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

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

Federal Administrative Law Also Protects Representation

The principle extends beyond immigration law.

The Administrative Procedure Act recognizes representation rights before federal agencies.

See 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).

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

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

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

The Real Issue Is Not Whether Representation Exists

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

The more important question is different:

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

The policy does not eliminate representation.

It increases the burden of obtaining representation.

That distinction matters.

The Financial Burden Falls on Immigrants

The most immediate effect of the policy is financial.

Before the policy:

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

After the policy:

Applicants may be responsible for:

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

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

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

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

Now the client may be required to cover:

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

For many families, the additional cost may be significant.

For some, it may be prohibitive.

The Policy Reduces Access to Specialized Counsel

Modern immigration practice has become highly specialized.

Many attorneys focus almost exclusively on:

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

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

The new policy may force applicants to choose between:

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

For many immigrants, that is a significant change.

Lower-Income Immigrants May Be Affected Most

The burden is unlikely to fall equally.

Wealthier applicants may absorb the added costs.

Middle-income families may struggle but proceed.

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

This creates an access-to-justice concern.

The right technically remains available.

The practical ability to exercise that right becomes more difficult.

Why Asylum Cases Raise Special Concerns

The impact may be particularly significant in affirmative asylum cases.

Asylum interviews frequently involve:

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

Attorneys often help:

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

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

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

The Efficiency Problem

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

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

Federal courts routinely conduct proceedings remotely.

Immigration courts increasingly utilize video technology.

USCIS encourages:

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

Telephonic attorney appearances generally:

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

The new policy eliminates many of those benefits.

A Policy That Increases Costs for Everyone

The policy shifts costs from the government to applicants.

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

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

The policy also imposes costs on attorneys.

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

Those hours cannot be spent:

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

Those costs are often reflected in legal fees.

USCIS May Also Lose Efficiency

Experienced attorneys often make interviews more efficient.

Counsel frequently helps:

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

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

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

What Problem Is USCIS Trying to Solve?

A fair question remains unanswered.

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

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

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

Is This Part of a Larger Trend?

Viewed in isolation, the policy may appear minor.

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

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

But it arguably increases the burden of exercising one.

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

Richard Herman’s Analysis

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

They do.

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

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

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

The new USCIS policy moves against that trend.

It increases costs.

It increases barriers.

It reduces flexibility.

And it may make specialized representation more difficult to obtain.

For some applicants, the change will be inconvenient.

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

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

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

 

Frequently Asked Questions About USCIS’s New Attorney Attendance Policy

Does USCIS still allow attorneys at immigration interviews?

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

When did the new USCIS attorney attendance policy take effect?

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

What USCIS interviews are affected by the policy?

The policy generally applies to:

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

Can my immigration attorney still participate by telephone?

Possibly, but only in limited circumstances.

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

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

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

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

Why is this policy controversial?

Critics argue that the policy:

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

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

Does the policy eliminate my right to legal representation?

No.

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

What regulation protects the right to legal representation before DHS?

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

Why is attorney representation important during USCIS interviews?

Attorneys may help:

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

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

Will this policy increase immigration legal fees?

In many cases, yes.

Applicants may now be responsible for:

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

Why does this policy affect access to specialized immigration attorneys?

Many immigration attorneys focus on highly specialized areas such as:

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

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

Did USCIS previously allow remote attorney participation?

Yes.

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

Does the policy affect asylum seekers?

Yes.

The policy applies to affirmative asylum interviews conducted by USCIS.

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

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

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

Some observers believe so.

Critics point to recent developments involving:

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

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

Could the policy be challenged in court?

Potentially.

Future challenges could focus on:

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

Whether such challenges will be successful remains uncertain.

Should I hire an attorney for my USCIS interview?

Every case is different.

Attorney representation may be particularly valuable if your case involves:

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

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

Need Help Preparing for a USCIS Interview?

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

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

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

Resource Directory

Official Government and Legal Authority

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

HLG Resources

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

 

 

Denaturalization in 2026: DOJ’s New Initiative—What Naturalized U.S. Citizens and Future Citizens Need to Know

Herman Legal Group’s Comprehensive Guide to Denaturalization, Naturalization, Good Moral Character, and Citizenship Security

Quick Answer

Yes, the U.S. government can revoke the citizenship of a naturalized citizen—but only under limited circumstances.

On June 8, 2026, the Department of Justice announced that it had filed denaturalization lawsuits against 17 naturalized U.S. citizens accused of obtaining citizenship through fraud, concealment of material facts, or other unlawful conduct.

For most naturalized citizens, this announcement should not create panic.

For green card holders planning to become U.S. citizens, however, the announcement serves as an important reminder:

The naturalization process is increasingly scrutinized, and accuracy, honesty, and consistency throughout your immigration history matter more than ever.

Key Takeaways

Can a Naturalized U.S. Citizen Lose Citizenship?

Yes.

A naturalized citizen may lose citizenship through a federal court denaturalization proceeding if the government proves that citizenship was illegally obtained or obtained through fraud or concealment.

Can Someone Be Deported After Becoming a Citizen?

Potentially.

If citizenship is revoked, the individual may return to noncitizen status and could later face removal proceedings.

Does a Later Criminal Conviction Automatically Cause Denaturalization?

No.

The government typically must prove that the individual concealed information, committed fraud, or was ineligible for naturalization at the time citizenship was granted.

Should Green Card Holders Still Apply for Citizenship?

In most cases, absolutely.

Citizenship remains one of the most valuable protections available under U.S. immigration law.

What Is the Biggest Risk Factor?

Misrepresentations, omissions, or fraud in prior immigration filings.

Why This Story Matters

The Department of Justice announcement is significant not because 17 cases were filed.

It is significant because it reflects a broader enforcement strategy for denaturalization in 2026 and beyond. While it remains to be seen, online reporting indicates that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field offices have been instructed to refer 100 to 200 denaturalization cases each month to the Department of Justice.

To provide context, denaturalization cases averaged 11 per year from 1990 to 2017. Trump’s administration increased denaturalization cases to about 25 annually.

Recent DOJ statements point more specifically to the DOJ’s 2025 memo, which said the Civil Division would prioritize denaturalization proceedings as part of federal immigration enforcement efforts.

The Administration has publicly emphasized pursuing cases involving:

• immigration fraud;

• identity fraud;

• national security concerns;

• concealed criminal histories;

• sex offenses;

• organized fraud schemes;

• human rights violations;

• terrorism-related allegations.

Historically, denaturalization actions focused on serious offenders, but current enforcement is expanding to broader targets.

The June 2026 cases follow a separate DOJ initiative announced earlier this year involving denaturalization actions against individuals accused of concealing support for terrorism, participation in war crimes, sexual abuse offenses, and espionage-related conduct.

For immigrants, immigration lawyers, employers, universities, and families, the message is clear:

The government intends to revisit citizenship grants if it believes they were obtained unlawfully.

For the DOJ announcement, see the official Department of Justice press release: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

What Is Denaturalization?

Denaturalization is the legal process through which the federal government revokes the citizenship of a naturalized U.S. citizen.

A person born a U.S. citizen generally cannot be denaturalized.

Instead, denaturalization applies only to individuals who acquired citizenship through the naturalization process, meaning even American citizenship can be taken away if it was unlawfully obtained.

Denaturalization requires a federal court ruling.

The government cannot simply cancel citizenship because it changes its mind.

Instead, federal lawyers must establish that citizenship was unlawfully obtained.

This article addresses CIVIL denaturalization. Another potential form of denaturalization is CRIMINAL.Criminal denaturalization has a 10-year statute of limitations. There is no statute of limitation for civil denaturalization.

The Two Primary Grounds for Denaturalization

The vast majority of denaturalization cases fall into one of two categories.

1. Illegal Procurement of Citizenship

Citizenship may be revoked if the individual never actually qualified for naturalization. The Supreme Court has affirmed that failing to comply with congressionally imposed requirements can lead to denaturalization.

Examples might include:

• lack of lawful permanent resident status;

• failure to meet continuous residence requirements;

• failure to establish physical presence;

• inability to demonstrate good moral character;

• statutory ineligibility at the time citizenship was granted.

2. Concealment or Willful Misrepresentation

This is the more common basis.

The government alleges that the applicant concealed or misrepresented information that would have affected USCIS’s decision.

Examples may include:

• undisclosed arrests;

• undisclosed criminal convictions;

• false identities;

• marriage fraud;

• asylum fraud;

• false employment histories;

• concealed immigration violations;

• undisclosed children or spouses;

• false statements under oath.

The Central Question in Most Denaturalization Cases

Most denaturalization cases ultimately revolve around one question:

Would USCIS have granted citizenship if it had known the truth?

If the answer is “no,” the government’s case becomes much stronger.

This principle appears repeatedly throughout denaturalization litigation.

• For future citizens, that means every prior immigration filing matters.

• Visa applications matter.

• Adjustment applications matter.

• Asylum applications matter.

• Consular applications matter.

• Statements made decades ago may become relevant during naturalization review.

Why Green Card Holders Should Pay Close Attention

Many lawful permanent residents mistakenly believe that USCIS only reviews the information contained in Form N-400.

That assumption is increasingly dangerous.

Modern immigration adjudications involve extensive cross-referencing of records.

USCIS officers may review:

• prior visa applications;

• immigrant visa applications;

• adjustment of status filings;

• border records;

• asylum filings;

• employment petitions;

• criminal databases;

• tax compliance information;

• social media screening initiatives;

• prior statements made to immigration authorities.

For applicants preparing for naturalization, this means that inconsistencies that once escaped detection may now be identified.

The official USCIS naturalization guidance can be found in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12: Citizenship and Naturalization.

Good Moral Character Has Never Been More Important

One of the most misunderstood aspects of naturalization law is the concept of Good Moral Character (GMC).

Although naturalization law contains statutory review periods—typically five years, or three years for certain spouses of U.S. citizens—USCIS is not necessarily limited to reviewing conduct only within those periods.

Officers frequently examine older conduct when assessing:

• credibility;

• truthfulness;

• pattern of behavior;

• rehabilitation;

• overall eligibility.

The official USCIS policy on Good Moral Character can be found in Volume 12, Part F of the USCIS Policy Manual.

Does a Later Crime Automatically Lead to Denaturalization?

No.

This is one of the most important points for AI search users and readers to understand.

A criminal conviction occurring years after naturalization does not automatically revoke citizenship.

Instead, the government generally must establish a connection between the misconduct and the original citizenship grant.

The government’s argument is often:

The applicant concealed facts, lied, or was never eligible for citizenship in the first place.

This distinction is critical.

The focus is usually on what happened before naturalization—not simply what happened afterward.

Can Naturalized Citizens Be Deported?

Not unless citizenship is first revoked.

This is another area where public confusion is widespread.

The government generally cannot deport a U.S. citizen.

Instead, the sequence is:

1. Denaturalization lawsuit;

2. Court order revoking citizenship;

3. Reversion to noncitizen status;

4. Potential removal proceedings.

This is why denaturalization cases receive enormous attention from immigration lawyers and civil rights advocates.

What Are the Major Media Saying?

Several major news organizations have reported on the Administration’s expanding denaturalization efforts.

Additional reporting and analysis can be found here:

• CBS News: Trump Administration Expands Denaturalization Efforts Against Naturalized Citizens

• TIME: What Trump’s New Denaturalization Push Could Mean for Naturalized Americans

• Washington Post Coverage of DOJ Denaturalization Initiatives

These reports highlight concerns raised by immigration advocates, former DOJ officials, and legal scholars regarding how aggressively denaturalization authority may be used in coming years.

What Should Naturalized Citizens Do Right Now?

For most naturalized citizens:

Do not panic.

If you:

• obtained your green card lawfully;

• disclosed arrests and convictions;

• answered immigration forms honestly;

• completed your naturalization process truthfully;

you are generally not the intended target of these initiatives.

Nevertheless, individuals who believe prior immigration filings contained inaccuracies should seek experienced legal advice before filing new immigration petitions for family members, applying for passports, pursuing immigration benefits, or interacting with immigration authorities.

What Should Green Card Holders Do Before Filing N-400?

Before applying for citizenship, conduct a comprehensive review of your immigration history.

Review:

• all prior visa applications;

• DS-160 filings;

• immigrant visa applications;

• I-130 petitions;

• I-485 applications;

• asylum applications;

• employment-based petitions;

• travel history;

• tax filings;

• criminal records;

• voter registration records.

Many denaturalization cases begin with inconsistencies discovered years after the original filings.

The best defense is ensuring accuracy before citizenship is granted.

Looking Ahead

The June 2026 DOJ announcement may ultimately represent one of the most important developments in citizenship law in recent years.

Whether the government’s strategy expands significantly will depend on future litigation, court rulings, congressional oversight, and federal enforcement priorities.

What is already clear is that USCIS, DOJ, and DHS are placing renewed emphasis on citizenship integrity, fraud detection, and historical immigration records.

For naturalized citizens, this is a reminder that citizenship obtained honestly remains extraordinarily secure.

For green card holders, it is a reminder that every immigration filing matters—and that the best time to address potential issues is before filing Form N-400.

The 15 Most Common Mistakes That Can Lead to Denaturalization

Why Some Naturalized Citizens Lose Citizenship—and What Green Card Holders Should Learn Before Filing Form N-400

One of the biggest misconceptions about denaturalization is that it happens because someone commits a crime after becoming a U.S. citizen.

In reality, most denaturalization cases are based on a different theory:

The government alleges that citizenship should never have been granted in the first place.

That principle lies at the heart of the Justice Department’s recent initiative to pursue denaturalization actions against 17 naturalized citizens accused of fraud, concealment of material facts, and other serious misconduct, as described in the DOJ’s June 2026 announcement: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

For lawful permanent residents planning to become U.S. citizens, understanding these risk factors is essential.

The goal is not fear.

The goal is preparation.

The vast majority of naturalized citizens will never face denaturalization proceedings.

But applicants should understand what USCIS and DOJ are increasingly scrutinizing.

1. Failing to Disclose Arrests, Charges, or Convictions

This remains one of the most common issues in both naturalization denials and denaturalization litigation.

Applicants sometimes believe:

• dismissed charges do not matter;

• expunged cases do not matter;

• foreign arrests do not matter;

• old offenses are irrelevant.

Those assumptions can create serious problems.

USCIS frequently expects disclosure even when a criminal matter did not result in conviction.

More importantly, a failure to disclose can become more significant than the underlying offense itself.

The government’s focus is often not the crime.

The focus is whether the applicant was truthful.

Applicants should carefully review their criminal history before filing Form N-400 and understand how USCIS evaluates Good Moral Character during the citizenship process.

2. Marriage Fraud

Marriage-based immigration remains one of the most common pathways to permanent residence.

It is also one of the most heavily investigated.

Years after citizenship is granted, the government may revisit:

• whether the marriage was bona fide;

• whether the parties lived together;

• whether documents submitted were genuine;

• whether the marriage was entered into solely for immigration benefits.

If USCIS concludes that the original green card was obtained through fraud, the citizenship granted later may become vulnerable.

This is one reason applicants pursuing citizenship through marriage should maintain documentation and understand the requirements associated with marriage-based green cards and adjustment of status.

3. Asylum Fraud

A significant number of modern denaturalization cases involve allegations connected to asylum applications.

Examples may include:

• fabricated persecution claims;

• false political affiliations;

• fraudulent documents;

• false arrests;

• concealment of criminal conduct abroad.

If asylum served as the foundation for permanent residence and eventual citizenship, any fraud allegation may affect the entire immigration history.

The government increasingly uses information sharing, digital records, and international databases to reassess prior claims.

4. Using a False Identity

Historically, some of the largest denaturalization initiatives have focused on identity fraud.

Examples include:

• using different names;

• concealing prior deportation orders;

• submitting applications under multiple identities;

• using fraudulent passports or travel documents.

DOJ has repeatedly emphasized that identity fraud undermines the integrity of the naturalization process and may justify denaturalization litigation.

5. False Claims to U.S. Citizenship

Few immigration violations are more serious.

Examples include:

• claiming U.S. citizenship on employment forms;

• claiming citizenship to obtain benefits;

• claiming citizenship to vote;

• falsely representing oneself as a citizen to government agencies.

Unlike many immigration violations, false claims to citizenship often have limited waiver options.

Applicants should understand the immigration consequences associated with false claims to U.S. citizenship before pursuing naturalization.

6. Unlawful Voting or Voter Registration Problems

Voter registration issues have become increasingly important.

Many noncitizens register inadvertently through motor vehicle agencies or voter outreach programs.

Others misunderstand eligibility requirements.

The legal consequences vary depending on the facts, but voting or registering to vote may create:

• naturalization complications;

• good moral character concerns;

• allegations of false claims to citizenship;

• removal issues.

Given increased government scrutiny, applicants should carefully review any voter registration history before filing Form N-400.

7. Tax Problems

USCIS frequently reviews tax compliance when evaluating naturalization applications.

Potential concerns include:

• failure to file returns;

• inaccurate filings;

• tax fraud allegations;

• substantial unpaid tax liabilities;

• claiming nonresident status improperly.

Tax compliance often intersects directly with the Good Moral Character analysis discussed in the USCIS Policy Manual.

8. Selective Service Issues

Many male applicants are required to register with Selective Service.

Failure to register when required may:

• delay citizenship;

• trigger additional questioning;

• create Good Moral Character concerns.

Applicants should address these issues before filing rather than waiting for USCIS to identify them during the naturalization process.

9. Fraud Committed by a Notario or Immigration Consultant

Many immigrants assume they are protected if someone else prepared the application.

Unfortunately, that assumption is often wrong.

USCIS generally expects applicants to review and verify information submitted under their names.

Examples include:

• fabricated asylum stories;

• false employment histories;

• fake supporting documents;

• fraudulent affidavits.

The defense that “my consultant did it” may not fully resolve the issue years later.

10. Concealing Prior Immigration Violations

Naturalization applicants sometimes assume older immigration violations no longer matter.

Examples include:

• unauthorized employment;

• overstays;

• prior removal proceedings;

• misrepresentations made during visa applications;

• use of fraudulent documents.

Those assumptions can become dangerous if the government later determines the information was concealed.

11. Employment-Based Immigration Fraud

The government increasingly examines employment-based immigration cases involving:

• fictitious jobs;

• fraudulent labor certifications;

• fake business operations;

• sham sponsorship arrangements.

If a green card was obtained through an employment arrangement that never actually existed, citizenship may later be challenged.

12. Concealing Family Relationships

Failure to disclose:

• children;

• spouses;

• prior marriages;

• family members;

can create significant credibility concerns.

These omissions frequently appear in immigration fraud investigations because family relationships often affect eligibility for immigration benefits.

13. Misrepresentations During Naturalization Interviews

The naturalization interview itself can become a source of future problems.

Applicants who provide inaccurate answers regarding:

• criminal history;

• travel;

• tax compliance;

• family relationships;

• prior immigration filings;

may create issues extending far beyond the interview itself.

Accuracy is always more important than speed.

14. Social Media and Digital Evidence Contradicting Prior Claims

Modern immigration enforcement increasingly involves digital evidence.

Social media posts, public records, photographs, and online activity may be compared against prior immigration filings.

Examples include:

• marriage fraud investigations;

• residence disputes;

• employment claims;

• asylum claims.

This trend reflects broader changes in immigration adjudications and government investigative capabilities.

15. Good Moral Character Problems That Were Never Fully Addressed

Perhaps the most important lesson from recent denaturalization cases is that Good Moral Character remains central to citizenship eligibility.

USCIS evaluates a wide range of factors, including:

• criminal history;

• tax compliance;

• honesty;

• financial obligations;

• family responsibilities;

• overall conduct.

The agency’s standards are outlined in the USCIS Policy Manual’s Good Moral Character section.

Applicants should also review Herman Legal Group’s resources on Good Moral Character and Naturalization and U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization before filing.

The Bigger Lesson Behind DOJ’s Denaturalization Initiative

The recent DOJ actions are not simply about 17 individuals.

They illustrate a broader principle:

Citizenship obtained honestly is extraordinarily secure.

The government’s denaturalization authority is generally directed at situations where officials believe citizenship was obtained through fraud, concealment, or unlawful procurement.

For most naturalized Americans, this should be reassuring.

For future citizens, however, it serves as a reminder that every immigration filing matters.

Every visa application matters.

Every statement made to immigration authorities matters.

And every issue that could affect eligibility should be addressed before filing Form N-400.

How Denaturalization Cases Actually Work — The Government’s Burden, Your Rights, and Why Many Cases Fail

Understanding the Legal Standards Behind DOJ’s New Citizenship Revocation Initiative

One of the most important facts missing from many media reports about denaturalization is this:

The government cannot simply decide to take away someone’s citizenship.

Unlike many immigration benefits, citizenship occupies a special constitutional status.

Once naturalization is granted, the government faces significant legal hurdles if it later seeks to revoke citizenship.

That is why many denaturalization cases receive intense scrutiny from federal courts.

It is also why naturalized citizens should understand both the government’s powers and its limitations.

As discussed in earlier sections, the Department of Justice recently announced lawsuits seeking to revoke citizenship from 17 naturalized Americans allegedly involved in immigration fraud, criminal concealment, and other misconduct, according to the DOJ’s official announcement: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

The announcement has sparked understandable concern.

But understanding the actual law is essential.

The Most Important Question

Most denaturalization cases ultimately revolve around one question:

Would USCIS have granted citizenship if it had known the truth?

If the answer is yes, the government’s case becomes much weaker.

If the answer is no, the government’s case becomes substantially stronger.

That principle lies at the center of modern denaturalization law.

Citizenship Is Not Just Another Immigration Benefit

Green cards can be revoked.

Visas can be revoked.

Parole can be terminated.

Temporary protected status can end.

Citizenship is different.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the extraordinary importance of citizenship.

In Schneiderman v. United States, the Court emphasized that citizenship should not be taken away lightly.

In Afroyim v. Rusk, the Court recognized constitutional protections against involuntary loss of citizenship.

As a result, federal courts typically require the government to satisfy an exceptionally demanding burden before citizenship can be revoked. In civil denaturalization cases, the government must prove its case by clear and convincing evidence.

What Must the Government Prove?

Under federal law, DOJ generally pursues denaturalization under one of two theories:

Theory #1: Illegal Procurement

The government alleges that the person was never legally eligible for naturalization.

Examples may include:

• lack of lawful permanent resident status;

• failure to satisfy residence requirements;

• inability to establish good moral character;

• statutory ineligibility.

Under this theory, DOJ argues:

Citizenship was granted by mistake because legal eligibility never existed.

Theory #2: Concealment of Material Facts or Willful Misrepresentation

This is the more common basis.

The government alleges that the applicant:

• lied;

• concealed information;

• used a false identity;

• omitted material facts;

• submitted fraudulent evidence.

The argument is that USCIS was deprived of information necessary to make an informed decision.

Many of the DOJ’s recent denaturalization lawsuits appear to fit within this category.

The Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision in Maslenjak

One of the most important modern denaturalization decisions is Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017).

Before Maslenjak, some government arguments suggested that almost any false statement during the immigration process might justify denaturalization.

The Supreme Court rejected that approach.

The Court held that:

Not every false statement justifies revocation of citizenship.

Instead, the government generally must establish that the false statement had a meaningful connection to eligibility for naturalization.

In practical terms:

• minor mistakes are not enough;

• innocent errors are not enough;

• immaterial inaccuracies are not enough.

The misrepresentation generally must matter.

This decision remains one of the strongest protections available to naturalized citizens facing denaturalization proceedings.

What Is a “Material” Misrepresentation?

A fact is generally considered material if it could influence the government’s decision.

Examples might include:

Potentially Material

• undisclosed criminal history;

• marriage fraud;

• asylum fraud;

• prior deportation orders;

• false identity information;

• terrorist activity;

• human rights violations.

Potentially Immaterial

• typographical errors;

• innocent memory mistakes;

• insignificant discrepancies;

• information unrelated to eligibility.

The distinction often becomes the central battlefield in denaturalization litigation.

Why Many Denaturalization Cases Fail

Media coverage sometimes creates the impression that once DOJ files a denaturalization lawsuit, citizenship is likely to be revoked.

That is not necessarily true.

Many cases face significant obstacles.

Problem #1: The Evidence Is Old

Many denaturalization investigations involve events that occurred:

• 10 years ago;

• 20 years ago;

• 30 years ago.

Witnesses disappear.

Memories fade.

Documents become unavailable.

Government records may be incomplete.

These realities often complicate litigation.

Problem #2: Intent Can Be Difficult to Prove

The government frequently must establish that a misrepresentation was intentional.

Many applicants argue:

• they misunderstood the question;

• they relied on translators;

• they relied on preparers;

• they misunderstood legal terminology;

• they honestly forgot an event.

Determining intent can be challenging.

Problem #3: Materiality Is Often Disputed

As Maslenjak makes clear, not every inaccuracy matters.

The government must frequently prove that the omitted information would have affected the citizenship decision.

That burden can be substantial.

Problem #4: Good Moral Character Cases Are Often Fact Intensive

Many denaturalization lawsuits involve allegations concerning Good Moral Character.

But GMC is rarely a simple issue.

USCIS officers and federal judges often evaluate:

• rehabilitation;

• family circumstances;

• credibility;

• context;

• timing.

As a result, these cases are often more nuanced than headlines suggest.

For applicants concerned about GMC issues, Herman Legal Group’s discussion of Good Moral Character and Naturalization provides a useful overview of how USCIS analyzes character-related concerns.

What Rights Does a Naturalized Citizen Have?

Naturalized citizens facing denaturalization proceedings possess significant protections.

These typically include:

The Right to Counsel

Individuals may retain experienced immigration and federal litigation counsel.

Given the stakes involved, legal representation is often essential.

The Right to Challenge Evidence

The government must support its allegations.

Evidence can be challenged through:

• motions;

• discovery;

• cross-examination;

• evidentiary objections.

The Right to Present Defenses

Potential defenses may include:

• lack of materiality;

• lack of intent;

• government error;

• mistaken identity;

• procedural defects;

• insufficient evidence.

The Right to Judicial Review

Denaturalization generally occurs through federal court proceedings.

Judges—not USCIS officers—ultimately determine whether citizenship should be revoked.

Why Naturalization Applicants Should Care About These Cases

Many readers may assume:

“I’m not a citizen yet, so denaturalization doesn’t affect me.”

That would be a mistake.

The most important lesson from these lawsuits is not about citizenship revocation.

It is about citizenship preparation.

Every denaturalization case is essentially a retrospective audit of someone’s immigration history.

Federal lawyers revisit:

• visa applications;

• green card filings;

• asylum applications;

• criminal records;

• tax history;

• family relationships;

• prior statements.

Future citizens should conduct that same review before filing Form N-400.

Applicants should carefully examine:

• prior immigration filings;

• travel history;

• criminal history;

• voter registration history;

• tax compliance;

• family records.

For many applicants, proactive review can identify issues before USCIS does.

Readers preparing for citizenship should also review HLG’s resources on U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization, Citizenship Interview Preparation, and Removal Defense, particularly if they have concerns involving prior immigration violations or criminal history.

The Emerging Reality: More Investigations, Not Mass Denaturalization

One of the most important distinctions often lost in public debate is the difference between:

• increased investigations; and

• successful denaturalization judgments.

The DOJ’s recent announcements signal that more investigations and lawsuits are likely.

They do not necessarily mean that courts will revoke citizenship in every case.

Historically, federal courts have taken citizenship revocation very seriously and have required substantial evidence before granting denaturalization.

That is unlikely to change.

What may change is the number of cases brought.

What Naturalized Citizens Should Do Now

If you are already a U.S. citizen, ask yourself:

• Were all prior immigration applications truthful and complete?

• Were arrests and convictions disclosed?

• Were prior marriages disclosed?

• Were children disclosed?

• Were immigration violations disclosed?

• Were asylum claims truthful?

• Were employment-based filings accurate?

If the answer is yes, the recent DOJ announcements should provide little reason for concern.

If you are uncertain, however, this may be an appropriate time to consult experienced immigration counsel and review your immigration history before a problem arises.

Good Moral Character, Citizenship, and Denaturalization — The Requirement That Never Truly Goes Away

How USCIS Evaluates Character, Honesty, Criminal Conduct, Tax Compliance, Voting Issues, and Credibility Before and After Naturalization

If there is one concept that connects almost every naturalization denial, citizenship challenge, and denaturalization lawsuit, it is Good Moral Character (GMC).

Many immigrants spend months studying for the civics test.

Many worry about the English exam.

Others focus on gathering documents.

Yet one of the most important citizenship requirements is often the least understood.

Good Moral Character is not simply about avoiding crime.

It is a broad inquiry into honesty, integrity, responsibility, compliance with the law, and credibility.

In many denaturalization cases, DOJ’s argument ultimately boils down to this:

Had USCIS known the truth, it would have concluded that the applicant lacked the Good Moral Character required for naturalization.

That is why understanding GMC is critical not only for green card holders applying for citizenship today, but also for naturalized citizens concerned about future scrutiny.

The official government guidance appears in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12, Part F: Good Moral Character, which remains one of the most important resources for any naturalization applicant.

What Is Good Moral Character?

The Immigration and Nationality Act requires naturalization applicants to demonstrate Good Moral Character during the statutory period preceding the filing of Form N-400.

For most applicants, that period is:

• five years before filing; or

• three years for certain spouses of U.S. citizens.

But many applicants misunderstand what that means.

The statute establishes a minimum review period.

It does not necessarily limit what USCIS can consider.

In fact, USCIS officers routinely evaluate conduct that occurred well outside the statutory period when determining whether an applicant has demonstrated the character required for citizenship.

As USCIS explains in its policy guidance, earlier conduct may be relevant when it reflects on current character, credibility, or honesty.

The Most Important Misunderstanding About Good Moral Character

Many people assume:

“If something happened more than five years ago, USCIS cannot consider it.”

That is often incorrect.

An event that occurred:

• ten years ago;

• fifteen years ago;

• twenty years ago;

may still become relevant if it helps USCIS evaluate:

• credibility;

• truthfulness;

• rehabilitation;

• overall character.

This principle becomes especially important in denaturalization cases.

Years after citizenship is granted, DOJ often revisits conduct that occurred decades earlier.

Why Good Moral Character Matters in Denaturalization Cases

Many recent DOJ denaturalization cases involve allegations that an applicant concealed information that would have affected the Good Moral Character analysis.

Examples include:

• criminal activity;

• fraud;

• false statements;

• immigration violations;

• tax issues;

• family-related misrepresentations.

The government’s argument is often straightforward:

Had USCIS known about the conduct, citizenship would never have been approved.

This is one reason why the June 2026 DOJ denaturalization initiative is so significant.

The government’s theory frequently centers on eligibility at the time citizenship was granted, not merely conduct occurring afterward.

See the DOJ’s announcement here: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

Honesty Is Often More Important Than the Underlying Conduct

One of the most important lessons for naturalization applicants is this:

USCIS frequently views dishonesty more seriously than the underlying mistake.

Consider two scenarios.

Applicant A

• Discloses an arrest.

• Provides court records.

• Explains what happened.

• Demonstrates rehabilitation.

Applicant B

• Fails to disclose the arrest.

• Denies it occurred.

• USCIS later discovers it independently.

The second applicant often faces the more serious problem.

The issue becomes credibility.

This principle appears repeatedly in naturalization denials and denaturalization litigation.

For applicants preparing Form N-400, honesty is almost always the safest strategy.

Criminal Conduct and Good Moral Character

Criminal history remains one of the most misunderstood areas of citizenship law.

Many people assume:

Any conviction prevents citizenship.

That is false.

Others assume:

No conviction means no problem.

That is also false.

USCIS evaluates:

• convictions;

• arrests;

• admissions of conduct;

• probation history;

• sentencing records;

• rehabilitation;

• patterns of behavior.

Some offenses create statutory bars.

Others require case-by-case analysis.

For readers facing criminal history concerns, HLG’s resources on Good Moral Character and Naturalization and Citizenship and Criminal Records provide additional guidance.

Tax Compliance and Citizenship

Tax issues receive far less attention than criminal matters.

Yet they frequently arise in naturalization interviews.

USCIS may examine:

• failure to file tax returns;

• unpaid tax obligations;

• improper tax classifications;

• tax fraud allegations;

• inconsistent financial representations.

The issue is rarely whether someone owes money.

The issue is whether the applicant has attempted to comply with legal obligations.

Applicants with unresolved tax issues should generally address them before filing Form N-400.

Child Support and Family Responsibilities

Another frequently overlooked GMC issue involves family obligations.

USCIS may consider:

• unpaid child support;

• failure to comply with court orders;

• abandonment of family responsibilities.

The agency often views compliance with legal obligations as evidence of character and responsibility.

Voter Registration and Voting Issues

Few topics have generated more confusion in recent years.

Many lawful permanent residents register to vote accidentally.

Some do so through motor vehicle agencies.

Others misunderstand eligibility requirements.

Still others receive incorrect advice.

The consequences depend heavily on the facts.

Potential concerns may include:

• unlawful voting allegations;

• false claims to citizenship;

• credibility concerns;

• naturalization eligibility issues.

These issues can become particularly important during citizenship interviews.

Applicants with voter registration histories should review them carefully before filing.

False Claims to U.S. Citizenship

This issue deserves special attention.

False claims to citizenship remain among the most severe immigration violations.

Examples may include:

• claiming citizenship on employment forms;

• claiming citizenship to obtain benefits;

• claiming citizenship to vote;

• making false representations to government officials.

For many applicants, these issues require individualized legal analysis before filing for naturalization.

Social Media, Digital Footprints, and Credibility

One of the most significant developments in modern immigration enforcement is the increasing use of digital evidence.

USCIS, DHS, and DOJ have access to significantly more information than in prior decades.

Publicly available information may be compared against:

• immigration filings;

• asylum claims;

• employment records;

• travel histories;

• family relationships.

For example:

A person claims they lived in one country during a particular period.

Social media posts suggest otherwise.

An applicant claims a marriage was genuine.

Digital evidence appears inconsistent.

This does not automatically establish fraud.

But it may trigger additional scrutiny.

For a deeper discussion of these issues, readers should review HLG’s analysis of digital footprints, social media screening, and immigration adjudications.

Can USCIS Revisit Old Conduct?

One of the most common questions asked by both citizens and green card holders is:

Can USCIS look at something that happened 20 years ago?

The answer is often yes.

The more important question is:

Why is USCIS looking at it?

If the conduct affects:

• eligibility;

• credibility;

• Good Moral Character;

• honesty;

• material representations;

it may remain relevant.

This principle appears repeatedly throughout denaturalization litigation.

What Future Citizens Should Learn from DOJ’s Current Strategy

The recent denaturalization initiative reveals something important.

The government is increasingly conducting what amounts to a retrospective audit.

Officials revisit:

• visa applications;

• green card applications;

• asylum filings;

• criminal records;

• tax records;

• family histories;

• sworn statements.

Future citizens should do the same before filing Form N-400.

The best naturalization strategy is often proactive review.

• Identify issues.

• Address inconsistencies.

• Gather records.

• Correct mistakes when possible.

• Do not assume USCIS will overlook them.

The Most Valuable Citizenship Advice in 2026

If there is one lesson from the DOJ’s renewed denaturalization efforts, it is this:

Citizenship is extraordinarily secure when it is obtained honestly.

Most naturalized Americans have little reason to fear denaturalization.

The overwhelming majority:

• entered lawfully;

• disclosed required information;

• complied with immigration laws;

• answered questions truthfully.

For those individuals, citizenship remains among the strongest protections available under U.S. law.

For future citizens, however, the lesson is equally clear:

• Every visa application matters.

• Every immigration filing matters.

• Every statement matters.

And every issue affecting Good Moral Character should be evaluated before filing Form N-400.

Who Is Actually at Risk? A Practical Denaturalization Risk Assessment for Naturalized Citizens and Future Citizens

Separating Real Risks from Fear, Headlines, and Political Rhetoric

Following the Department of Justice’s June 2026 announcement that it had filed denaturalization actions against 17 naturalized citizens, many immigrants have begun asking the same question:

Should I be worried?

The answer depends entirely on your individual history.

One of the biggest problems with media coverage of denaturalization is that it often treats all naturalized citizens as though they face the same risk.

They do not.

A naturalized citizen who accurately disclosed all arrests, paid taxes, answered USCIS questions honestly, and obtained a green card lawfully is in a dramatically different position than someone who concealed serious criminal conduct, committed immigration fraud, or used a false identity.

Understanding that distinction is critical.

The overwhelming majority of naturalized Americans are not realistic targets of denaturalization litigation.

However, some groups face significantly greater scrutiny than others.

This section explains where those risks actually exist.

Lowest Risk Category: Most Naturalized Citizens

Let’s begin with the group that should be least concerned.

Generally speaking, risk is extremely low for naturalized citizens who:

• lawfully obtained permanent residence;

• accurately completed immigration forms;

• disclosed arrests and convictions;

• complied with tax obligations;

• answered USCIS questions truthfully;

• have no history of immigration fraud.

For these individuals, citizenship remains extraordinarily secure.

This point is often lost in public debate.

The government’s recent denaturalization initiatives are not aimed at ordinary naturalized citizens.

Rather, DOJ has repeatedly emphasized allegations involving fraud, concealment, criminal conduct, false identities, and other serious misconduct, as reflected in the Department’s June 2026 announcement: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

For most naturalized Americans, that distinction matters.

A great deal.

Low Risk Category: Long-Term Citizens with Clean Histories

Generally low-risk individuals include:

• naturalized citizens for many years;

• individuals with consistent immigration records;

• applicants with no significant criminal history;

• applicants whose immigration history has been thoroughly documented.

The longer citizenship has existed without questions or discrepancies, the more difficult many denaturalization cases become from a practical standpoint.

Evidence grows older.

Witnesses disappear.

Memories fade.

Although there is no statute of limitations for many denaturalization actions, practical realities still matter.

Moderate Risk Category: Individuals with Prior Criminal History

Criminal history does not automatically create denaturalization risk.

The key questions usually are:

• Was the conduct disclosed?

• Was USCIS aware of it?

• Did it affect eligibility?

• Was there any concealment?

Consider two examples.

Example One

• An applicant disclosed an arrest.

• Provided court records.

• Answered questions honestly.

• USCIS approved citizenship.

• Risk is generally much lower.

Example Two

An applicant denied an arrest occurred.

Failed to disclose convictions.

USCIS later discovers the omission.

Risk increases significantly.

For this reason, individuals with criminal histories should carefully review prior filings and understand how USCIS evaluates Good Moral Character.

Elevated Risk Category: Marriage-Based Cases Involving Possible Fraud

Marriage-based immigration remains one of the most heavily scrutinized areas of immigration law.

Denaturalization risk may increase when the government later alleges:

• the marriage was fraudulent;

• the parties never intended to build a life together;

• documents were fabricated;

• the relationship was entered solely for immigration benefits.

It is important to emphasize:

A divorce does not establish marriage fraud.

Many legitimate marriages fail.

The issue is whether the marriage was genuine when immigration benefits were obtained.

Readers concerned about marriage-based immigration issues should review HLG’s resources on Marriage Green Cards and Adjustment of Status.

Elevated Risk Category: Asylum-Based and Refugee-Based Cases

Historically, many denaturalization cases have involved allegations that asylum or refugee status was obtained through fraud.

Examples may include allegations that the applicant:

• fabricated persecution claims;

• concealed criminal conduct abroad;

• used false identities;

• failed to disclose military activity;

• concealed political affiliations.

The government’s concern is often not citizenship itself.

Rather, the government argues that the original immigration benefit should never have been granted.

Because asylum often serves as the foundation for permanent residence and later citizenship, challenges at the asylum stage can affect everything that followed.

Elevated Risk Category: False Identity Cases

Identity-related issues remain among the strongest denaturalization cases the government can bring.

Examples include:

• multiple identities;

• fraudulent passports;

• undisclosed aliases;

• concealed prior removals;

• false biographical information.

These cases frequently appear in DOJ announcements because identity issues often affect every stage of the immigration process.

Elevated Risk Category: False Claims to U.S. Citizenship

False claims to citizenship remain one of the most serious issues in immigration law.

Potential examples include:

• claiming citizenship on employment forms;

• claiming citizenship to vote;

• claiming citizenship to obtain government benefits;

• making false statements to immigration officers.

These cases often require individualized legal analysis because the consequences can be severe and may affect both immigration status and naturalization eligibility.

Elevated Risk Category: Voting and Voter Registration Cases

Voting-related cases have attracted increased attention in recent years.

Potential issues include:

• unlawful voting;

• voter registration by noncitizens;

• allegations of false claims to citizenship;

• inconsistent statements concerning eligibility.

However, not every voter registration mistake creates denaturalization risk.

• Facts matter.

• Intent matters.

• State law matters.

• The manner in which registration occurred matters.

This is an area where generalized advice can be dangerous.

Individual case review is often essential.

Elevated Risk Category: Immigration Fraud Investigations

When DHS, USCIS, or DOJ alleges immigration fraud, risk increases significantly.

Examples include:

• employment sponsorship fraud;

• labor certification fraud;

• fraudulent supporting documents;

• sham business operations;

• fraudulent family relationships;

• misrepresentation of qualifications.

The government increasingly uses digital databases, information sharing, and cross-agency investigations to identify these cases.

High Risk Category: Cases Specifically Mentioned in Recent DOJ Announcements

The DOJ’s recent denaturalization initiatives have focused heavily on allegations involving:

• sex offenses, including cases of sexually abusing minors;

• large-scale fraud, including wire fraud;

• human rights violations, such as committing war crimes;

• terrorism-related activity;

• organized criminal conduct;

• drug trafficking;

• identity fraud.

Recent denaturalization targets have included individuals from countries such as Cuba, Colombia, and Haiti.

Individuals facing allegations of this nature should assume that immigration consequences may extend beyond criminal proceedings.

What About Employment-Based Immigrants?

Many employment-based immigrants have asked whether they face greater risk under current enforcement trends.

For most employment-based immigrants, the answer is no.

Risk generally remains low if:

• the job was legitimate;

• sponsorship was genuine;

• qualifications were accurately represented;

• forms were completed truthfully.

Risk increases when allegations involve:

• fake job offers;

• shell companies;

• fabricated experience;

• fraudulent labor certifications.

Again, the focus is typically fraud—not lawful participation in the immigration system.

What About Investors and EB-5 Applicants?

Most EB-5 investors have little reason for concern.

However, denaturalization risk may increase when allegations involve:

• fraudulent investment sources;

• fabricated financial documentation;

• money laundering;

• concealed ownership interests;

• false statements regarding project participation.

As with other categories, honesty and documentation remain the central issues.

What About Military Families?

Historically, military service has often been viewed favorably in immigration adjudications.

However, military service does not immunize someone from denaturalization if citizenship was obtained unlawfully.

The same basic principles apply:

• eligibility;

• honesty;

• disclosure;

• materiality.

What About Green Card Holders Planning to Apply for Citizenship?

This group may have the most to learn from DOJ’s current strategy.

Future citizens should view recent denaturalization cases as cautionary examples.

The lesson is not:

“Don’t apply for citizenship.”

The lesson is:

“Prepare carefully before applying.”

Before filing Form N-400, applicants should review:

• prior visa applications;

• adjustment filings;

• asylum filings;

• criminal records;

• tax compliance;

• voter registration history;

• family relationships;

• travel history.

Readers preparing for naturalization should review HLG’s resources on U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization, Good Moral Character, and Citizenship Interview Preparation.

The Biggest Mistake Immigrants Make

The most dangerous assumption is often:

“That happened years ago, so it doesn’t matter anymore.”

Many denaturalization cases involve conduct that occurred:

• 10 years ago;

• 20 years ago;

• 30 years ago.

Time alone does not necessarily eliminate risk.

If the conduct affects eligibility, credibility, or the validity of the original immigration benefit, it may still become relevant.

Richard Herman’s Observation

One lesson repeatedly emerges from decades of immigration practice:

Most serious immigration problems are not created by bad facts.

They are created by hidden facts.

USCIS, DHS, and DOJ often show greater concern about concealment than about the underlying issue itself.

Applicants who disclose problems, address them directly, and seek competent legal advice are often in a far stronger position than those who attempt to hide information and hope it never resurfaces.

That lesson applies equally to naturalization, denaturalization, adjustment of status, consular processing, asylum, and virtually every other area of immigration law.

The Citizenship Audit Checklist — What Every Green Card Holder Should Do Before Filing Form N-400 in 2026 and Beyond

The Most Important Step Most Naturalization Applicants Never Take

If the DOJ’s recent denaturalization initiative teaches future citizens anything, it should be this:

Before you apply for citizenship, conduct your own citizenship audit.

One of the most common mistakes naturalization applicants make is assuming that USCIS will only review the information contained in Form N-400.

That assumption is increasingly dangerous.

Modern naturalization adjudications often involve review of:

• visa applications;

• immigrant petitions;

• adjustment of status filings;

• asylum applications;

• employment petitions;

• border records;

• criminal records;

• tax records;

• voter registration records;

• social media and publicly available information.

In effect, filing Form N-400 often triggers a comprehensive review of your entire immigration history.

The best strategy is simple:

Review your history before USCIS does.

This section provides a practical framework that every lawful permanent resident should consider before filing for naturalization.

Why a Citizenship Audit Matters More Than Ever

The government’s recent denaturalization efforts focus largely on one theme:

Information that USCIS allegedly did not know when citizenship was granted.

According to the Department of Justice, many of the individuals targeted in recent denaturalization lawsuits allegedly concealed information or obtained immigration benefits through fraud or misrepresentation.

See the DOJ announcement: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

Whether or not those allegations ultimately succeed in court, they illustrate an important lesson:

USCIS and DOJ increasingly revisit earlier filings.

Future citizens should do the same.

Step 1: Obtain Your Complete Immigration File

Before filing Form N-400, gather copies of:

• visa applications;

• immigrant visa applications;

• DS-160 forms;

• I-130 petitions;

• I-140 petitions;

• I-485 applications;

• asylum applications;

• prior USCIS correspondence;

• prior RFEs and NOIDs;

• approval notices.

Many applicants no longer remember what was submitted years earlier.

That can create problems.

One of the most common issues in naturalization interviews is inconsistency between current answers and earlier filings.

Applicants should review their complete immigration history before submitting new applications.

For a broader overview of the citizenship process, review HLG’s guide to U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization.

Step 2: Review Every Prior Statement for Consistency

This is perhaps the most overlooked step.

Ask yourself:

• Did I list every address correctly?

• Did I disclose every marriage?

• Did I disclose every child?

• Did I accurately describe employment history?

• Did I accurately disclose travel history?

• Did I answer prior immigration questions consistently?

Many denaturalization cases begin with inconsistencies discovered years later.

The issue is often not the inconsistency itself.

The issue is whether USCIS concludes it was intentional.

Step 3: Obtain Criminal Records Before USCIS Does

Do not rely on memory.

Obtain official records.

Review:

• arrests;

• citations;

• dismissals;

• expungements;

• diversions;

• probation records;

• foreign criminal matters.

Many applicants incorrectly assume that dismissed or expunged cases do not matter.

USCIS frequently expects disclosure even when a criminal case did not result in conviction.

For additional guidance, review HLG’s discussion of Good Moral Character and Naturalization.

Step 4: Evaluate Good Moral Character Before Filing

Many naturalization denials occur because applicants never performed a serious GMC analysis before filing.

USCIS examines far more than criminal convictions.

Potential issues include:

• arrests;

• tax problems;

• unpaid child support;

• fraud allegations;

• false statements;

• probation violations;

• gambling issues;

• substance abuse concerns.

The official USCIS guidance appears in Volume 12, Part F of the USCIS Policy Manual.

Applicants should understand these standards before filing—not after receiving a denial.

Step 5: Review Tax Compliance Carefully

Tax issues are frequently underestimated.

USCIS may examine:

• whether returns were filed;

• whether taxes remain unpaid;

• whether payment arrangements exist;

• whether filings were accurate;

• whether financial representations are consistent with immigration filings.

Questions involving tax compliance often arise during naturalization interviews.

Applicants with unresolved tax matters should generally address them before filing.

Step 6: Check Your Voter Registration History

This issue deserves special attention.

Many lawful permanent residents discover years later that they were registered to vote.

Common situations include:

• registration at a motor vehicle office;

• voter outreach drives;

• mistaken assumptions regarding eligibility.

Before filing Form N-400:

• verify whether you are registered;

• determine whether voting occurred;

• obtain records if necessary.

These issues can become significant because they may implicate both Good Moral Character and allegations involving false claims to citizenship.

Step 7: Review Social Media and Public Records

Modern immigration investigations increasingly incorporate publicly available information.

Applicants should ask:

• Are my public statements consistent with immigration filings?

• Are employment claims accurate?

• Are relationship representations consistent?

• Do public records contradict information previously submitted to USCIS?

This does not mean applicants should delete information.

It means applicants should understand what information exists and whether inconsistencies require explanation.

For a broader discussion, review HLG’s articles regarding digital footprints, social media screening, and immigration adjudications.

Step 8: Verify Family Information

Many immigration problems arise from incomplete family disclosures.

Review:

• current spouse;

• former spouses;

• children;

• stepchildren;

• dependents.

USCIS frequently compares current applications against prior filings.

Missing family information often attracts scrutiny because family relationships frequently affect immigration eligibility.

Step 9: Review Employment History

Employment records often become important in both naturalization and denaturalization cases.

Review:

• job titles;

• dates of employment;

• employers;

• sponsorship information;

• self-employment activities.

Particular care should be taken if immigration benefits were based on employment sponsorship.

Step 10: Review Travel History

Naturalization eligibility often depends upon:

• continuous residence;

• physical presence;

• travel patterns.

Applicants should verify:

• departure dates;

• return dates;

• extended trips abroad;

• residence patterns.

USCIS frequently compares travel records against information provided during interviews.

Step 11: Determine Whether Prior Immigration Violations Exist

Many applicants incorrectly assume older violations no longer matter.

Potential issues include:

• unauthorized employment;

• status violations;

• overstays;

• prior removal proceedings;

• misrepresentations;

• fraudulent documents.

Not every violation prevents citizenship.

But every significant issue should be analyzed before filing.

Step 12: Identify Any Potential Fraud Allegations

This step may be the most important of all.

Ask yourself:

Could the government later claim that any prior immigration benefit was obtained through:

• fraud?

• concealment?

• misrepresentation?

• false documents?

• inaccurate statements?

If the answer is potentially yes, consult counsel before filing.

Many denaturalization cases originate from allegations involving the original immigration benefit rather than the naturalization application itself.

Step 13: Prepare for Difficult Questions Before the Interview

Naturalization interviews increasingly involve detailed questioning.

Applicants should be prepared to discuss:

• prior arrests;

• travel history;

• tax issues;

• family history;

• employment history;

• immigration filings.

Preparation matters.

Readers should review HLG’s guidance on Citizenship Interview Preparation before appearing for an interview.

Step 14: Consider Filing FOIA Requests

Some applicants benefit from obtaining government records before filing.

Potential sources include:

• USCIS;

• CBP;

• ICE;

• Department of State.

FOIA requests can reveal discrepancies, missing records, and issues requiring explanation before naturalization.

Step 15: Obtain a Professional Case Review

Many citizenship problems are entirely avoidable.

An experienced immigration attorney can identify:

• Good Moral Character concerns;

• criminal issues;

• voter registration problems;

• fraud allegations;

• documentary inconsistencies.

Addressing issues before filing is usually far easier than responding to a denial, RFE, NOID, or investigation later.

The Citizenship Audit Most People Never Conduct

One of the striking themes emerging from DOJ’s denaturalization initiative is that many targeted cases allegedly involved information hidden somewhere in the person’s immigration history.

That history may span:

• decades;

• multiple applications;

• several immigration agencies;

• different countries.

Future citizens should not wait for the government to perform that review.

They should perform it themselves.

The strongest naturalization cases are rarely the cases with perfect facts.

They are the cases where applicants understand their history, disclose issues honestly, and prepare thoroughly before filing.

A Question Every Future Citizen Should Ask

Before submitting Form N-400, ask yourself:

If USCIS reviewed every immigration filing I have ever submitted, every travel record, every criminal record, every tax return, and every public statement, would the information be consistent?

If the answer is yes, you are likely well-positioned for the naturalization process.

If the answer is uncertain, now is the time to investigate—not after USCIS does.

Can a Naturalized Citizen Be Deported? What Happens After Denaturalization, Passport Revocation, Family Consequences, and Available Defenses

The Practical Consequences of Losing Citizenship—and Why Most Naturalized Americans Will Never Face This Situation

Perhaps no question generates more fear than this one:

Can a naturalized U.S. citizen be deported?

The short answer is:

Not unless citizenship is first revoked.

That distinction is critically important.

Many headlines discussing the Department of Justice’s renewed denaturalization efforts leave readers with the impression that naturalized citizens are suddenly at risk of immediate deportation.

That is not how the process works.

Under U.S. law, citizenship generally must be stripped first through a successful denaturalization action before removal proceedings can occur.

Understanding that sequence is essential for both naturalized citizens and lawful permanent residents considering naturalization.

The Three Stages of a Denaturalization Case

Most denaturalization matters proceed in three separate phases.

Phase One: Government Investigation

The process often begins when USCIS, DHS, DOJ, or another agency identifies information suggesting that citizenship may have been unlawfully obtained.

Potential triggers include:

• criminal investigations;

• immigration fraud investigations;

• national security investigations;

• audits of prior immigration files;

• information received from foreign governments;

• inconsistent statements in later immigration filings.

In recent years, agencies have increasingly relied upon digital records, database matching, and interagency information sharing.

Phase Two: Denaturalization Litigation

The government files a denaturalization action in federal court.

At this stage:

• citizenship remains intact;

• the person remains a U.S. citizen;

• the person remains entitled to constitutional protections;

• the government bears the burden of proof.

As discussed above, citizenship cannot simply be canceled by USCIS.

Federal courts play a central role.

This remains one of the most important safeguards in the denaturalization process.

Phase Three: Immigration Consequences

Only after citizenship is revoked do immigration consequences typically become possible.

The individual may then return to whatever immigration status existed before naturalization—or, in some circumstances, may be left without lawful status.

At that point, DHS may seek removal.

This is why immigration lawyers often describe denaturalization as the gateway to deportation rather than deportation itself.

What Happens Immediately After Citizenship Is Revoked?

The answer depends heavily on the individual’s immigration history.

Several different scenarios are possible.

Scenario One: Return to Lawful Permanent Resident Status

In some cases, the individual may revert to lawful permanent resident status.

This does not necessarily mean removal will occur.

However, DHS may still examine whether grounds of removability exist.

Scenario Two: No Underlying Lawful Status Exists

In other cases, the government may argue that:

• the green card was fraudulently obtained;

• lawful permanent residence never legally existed;

• immigration benefits were invalid from the beginning.

These situations often present significantly greater risk.

Scenario Three: Additional Removal Grounds Exist

Some denaturalization cases involve allegations of:

• fraud;

• criminal conduct;

• national security concerns;

• human rights violations.

In such cases, DHS may pursue removal proceedings after citizenship is revoked.

Does the Government Take Away the Passport?

Potentially yes.

If citizenship is revoked, a U.S. passport generally loses its legal foundation.

A passport is evidence of citizenship.

Once citizenship no longer exists, passport validity may be affected.

This is one reason denaturalization cases can have immediate practical consequences.

Issues may arise involving:

• international travel;

• passport renewal;

• reentry into the United States;

• consular protection abroad.

What Happens to Your Spouse?

This is one of the most frequently asked questions.

The answer depends on the facts.

Generally speaking:

Denaturalization of one person does not automatically strip immigration status from a spouse.

However, complications may arise if the spouse’s immigration benefits depended upon fraud allegedly committed by the denaturalized individual.

For example:

If the government alleges that a marriage was fraudulent from the beginning, the immigration consequences may extend beyond the principal applicant.

These situations require individualized analysis.

What Happens to Your Children?

Again, facts matter.

In many situations:

• children remain U.S. citizens;

• derivative citizenship remains valid;

• citizenship already acquired remains protected.

However, there are circumstances where a denaturalization case may raise questions concerning derivative citizenship.

Because citizenship law is highly technical, these issues should be analyzed carefully.

Can Citizenship Be Restored?

Potentially.

Several avenues may exist.

These can include:

• appeals;

• motions;

• federal court challenges;

• procedural defenses.

Whether citizenship can ultimately be restored depends on the basis for the denaturalization order and the procedural posture of the case.

Can Someone Appeal a Denaturalization Decision?

Yes.

Federal court decisions are generally subject to appellate review.

The exact procedures depend upon:

• the type of proceeding;

• the court involved;

• the issues being challenged.

Appeals often focus on:

• legal errors;

• evidentiary issues;

• materiality;

• due process concerns;

• interpretation of immigration statutes.

What Defenses Are Available?

One of the biggest misconceptions about denaturalization is that citizenship revocation is automatic once DOJ files a lawsuit.

That is simply not true.

Potential defenses may include:

Lack of Materiality

As discussed in Maslenjak v. United States, not every false statement justifies denaturalization.

The government generally must show that the alleged misrepresentation mattered.

Lack of Intent

Many cases involve disputes concerning intent.

Applicants may argue:

• misunderstanding;

• language barriers;

• translation problems;

• reliance on preparers;

• innocent mistakes.

Government Error

Sometimes government records are incomplete or inaccurate.

Immigration files spanning decades can contain errors.

Those errors may become important during litigation.

Insufficient Evidence

The government still bears the burden of proof.

Old cases often involve:

• missing witnesses;

• missing records;

• faded memories.

These realities can complicate litigation.

Constitutional and Procedural Defenses

Citizenship enjoys unique constitutional protections.

Federal courts carefully scrutinize denaturalization cases because the stakes are extraordinarily high.

Why Many Denaturalization Cases Never Reach Court

Another important reality rarely discussed in media coverage is that many investigations never result in lawsuits.

Government agencies may:

• investigate;

• review files;

• conduct interviews;

• analyze records;

and ultimately determine that no action is warranted.

This distinction is important.

An investigation is not a denaturalization order.

A lawsuit is not a judgment.

An allegation is not proof.

What Current Citizens Should Learn from DOJ’s 2026 Initiative

The Department of Justice’s June 2026 announcement has understandably generated concern.

But the broader lesson is not that citizenship has become fragile.

The broader lesson is that the government is increasingly willing to revisit citizenship grants when it believes fraud, concealment, or unlawful procurement occurred.

For most naturalized Americans, that does not create significant risk.

For individuals who knowingly concealed serious information during the immigration process, the risk may be considerably greater.

What Future Citizens Should Learn

For green card holders, these cases offer an important lesson.

Naturalization should never be viewed as merely a form-filling exercise.

It is a legal process that builds upon every immigration application that came before it.

That is why future applicants should review:

• visa applications;

• adjustment filings;

• asylum applications;

• criminal records;

• tax history;

• voter registration history;

• travel records;

• family information.

Readers considering citizenship should familiarize themselves with HLG’s resources on U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization, Good Moral Character, Removal Defense, and Citizenship Interview Preparation.

The strongest citizenship cases are not necessarily those with perfect facts.

They are the cases where applicants fully understand their history, disclose issues honestly, and prepare carefully before filing.

The Bottom Line

Can a naturalized citizen be deported?

Yes—but only after citizenship is successfully revoked.

Can the government revoke citizenship?

Yes—but only under limited circumstances and typically only after satisfying demanding legal standards in federal court.

Should most naturalized Americans be worried?

No.

The overwhelming majority obtained citizenship lawfully and honestly and face little realistic risk of denaturalization.

Should green card holders pay attention?

Absolutely.

The most important lesson from today’s denaturalization cases is not about losing citizenship.

It is about obtaining citizenship correctly in the first place.

The Future of Denaturalization in America — Where DOJ, USCIS, the Courts, and Congress May Be Heading Next

How Naturalized Citizens, Green Card Holders, and Immigration Lawyers Should Think About the Next Decade of Citizenship Enforcement

The Department of Justice’s June 2026 denaturalization announcement is important not simply because of the 17 cases that were filed.

It is important because it raises a larger question:

Is this the beginning of a major expansion of denaturalization enforcement in the United States?

For naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, immigration lawyers, employers, universities, and policymakers, this may be the most important question raised by the current debate.

No one can predict with certainty how aggressively future administrations will pursue denaturalization.

However, several trends are already becoming clear.

• The government is investing more resources in fraud detection.

• Immigration records are becoming increasingly digitized.

• Information-sharing between agencies continues to expand.

• Artificial intelligence and advanced analytics are making it easier to identify inconsistencies that previously might have gone unnoticed.

At the same time, federal courts continue to impose substantial constitutional and evidentiary limits on the government’s ability to revoke citizenship.

The future of denaturalization will likely be shaped by the tension between those two forces.

Trend #1: More Investigations, More File Reviews, and More Referrals

One of the clearest lessons from recent DOJ announcements is that federal agencies are devoting greater attention to reviewing historical immigration files.

This does not necessarily mean there will be mass denaturalization.

It does mean there will likely be:

• more investigations;

• more referrals to DOJ;

• more reviews of old immigration records;

• more scrutiny of fraud allegations;

• more interagency cooperation.

The June 2026 DOJ announcement follows several earlier denaturalization initiatives involving allegations of immigration fraud, criminal concealment, human rights violations, terrorism-related activity, and false identities.

The practical result is that applicants should assume historical immigration records are more accessible and more searchable than ever before.

Trend #2: Technology Is Changing Immigration Enforcement

A naturalization application filed twenty years ago might have been reviewed largely through paper files.

Today, immigration agencies increasingly operate in a digital environment.

Government investigators can compare:

• visa applications;

• adjustment filings;

• asylum applications;

• travel records;

• criminal databases;

• public records;

• social media activity;

• employment information.

As discussed in HLG’s articles addressing digital footprints and immigration adjudications, technology is transforming the way immigration agencies evaluate credibility and consistency.

The central issue remains the same:

Does the information submitted today match the information submitted years ago?

But the ability to answer that question has changed dramatically.

Trend #3: Artificial Intelligence Will Increase Detection, But Also Increase Errors

Many immigration lawyers expect AI-assisted review systems to become increasingly common.

Potential uses include:

• identifying inconsistent addresses;

• comparing travel histories;

• flagging conflicting statements;

• detecting identity discrepancies;

• highlighting potential fraud indicators.

This creates opportunities and risks.

The opportunity is greater efficiency.

The risk is that automated systems may misunderstand context, miss explanations, or incorrectly flag legitimate cases.

Immigration lawyers are likely to spend increasing amounts of time correcting false assumptions generated by automated review systems.

For that reason, documentation, consistency, and careful preparation will become even more important.

Trend #4: Federal Courts Will Continue to Act as a Check on Government Power

The government’s ability to investigate citizenship grants may be expanding.

But so are the legal protections available to citizens.

Federal courts have historically viewed citizenship as one of the most valuable rights recognized under American law.

Supreme Court decisions such as Schneiderman v. United States, Afroyim v. Rusk, and Maslenjak v. United States demonstrate a consistent theme:

Citizenship should not be taken away lightly.

Courts generally require strong evidence before citizenship can be revoked.

This is unlikely to change.

Regardless of political administration, federal judges will continue to play a central role in determining the limits of denaturalization authority.

Trend #5: Fraud Cases Will Remain the Government’s Strongest Cases

Despite political rhetoric from both sides, most successful denaturalization cases are likely to continue involving allegations such as:

• identity fraud;

• marriage fraud;

• asylum fraud;

• human rights violations;

• concealed criminal histories;

• false statements;

• fraudulent immigration documents.

These are the cases that tend to present the strongest factual and legal foundations.

By contrast, attempts to expand denaturalization beyond traditional fraud-based theories may face significantly greater judicial scrutiny.

What Immigration Lawyers Are Seeing in 2026

Across the country, immigration lawyers are reporting several common themes.

First, naturalization interviews appear increasingly detailed.

Second, officers are paying greater attention to prior filings.

Third, inconsistencies that once may have been overlooked are receiving closer review.

Fourth, applicants with criminal history, voter registration issues, tax concerns, or prior immigration violations are encountering more questions than in previous years.

At the same time, most routine naturalization applications continue to be approved.

This distinction is important.

The immigration system is experiencing heightened scrutiny.

It is not experiencing mass denaturalization.

Will Congress Change the Law?

Congress could theoretically modify aspects of denaturalization law.

However, major legislative changes appear unlikely in the near term.

Citizenship revocation remains politically sensitive.

Any proposal to significantly expand denaturalization authority would likely face substantial legal and political opposition.

As a result, the most significant developments are likely to come from:

• DOJ enforcement priorities;

• USCIS policy changes;

• federal court decisions;

• technological developments.

Should Naturalized Citizens Be Concerned About the Future?

For most naturalized citizens, the answer remains no.

Individuals who:

• immigrated lawfully;

• disclosed required information;

• complied with immigration laws;

• answered questions honestly;

• obtained citizenship legitimately;

remain at extremely low risk.

The vast majority of naturalized Americans fall into this category.

The recent DOJ initiatives are directed primarily at cases involving allegations of fraud, concealment, and unlawful procurement of citizenship.

That distinction should not be overlooked.

Should Green Card Holders Still Pursue Citizenship?

Absolutely.

In fact, the current environment may strengthen the argument for naturalization.

Citizenship continues to provide protections unavailable to lawful permanent residents.

These include:

• protection from most removal grounds;

• voting rights;

• broader travel protections;

• eligibility for additional federal benefits;

• the ability to petition for family members more effectively;

• greater security during periods of immigration policy change.

The lesson of recent denaturalization cases is not:

“Avoid citizenship.”

The lesson is:

“Prepare carefully and obtain citizenship the right way.”

Richard Herman’s Perspective

For more than three decades, one lesson has remained remarkably consistent.

Immigration problems rarely arise because a person made a mistake.

They usually arise because the mistake was never addressed.

The strongest naturalization applicants are not necessarily those with perfect histories.

They are the applicants who:

• understand their history;

• disclose issues honestly;

• gather documentation;

• seek legal guidance when needed;

• prepare thoroughly before filing.

That approach remains the best protection against both naturalization problems today and denaturalization concerns tomorrow.

The Bottom Line

The future of denaturalization is likely to involve:

• more investigations;

• more sophisticated technology;

• more historical file reviews;

• more fraud detection efforts;

• continued judicial oversight.

At the same time, citizenship remains one of the most protected legal statuses in the American legal system.

Federal courts continue to impose substantial limits on the government’s ability to revoke citizenship.

For most naturalized Americans, that should provide reassurance.

For future citizens, it should provide motivation to ensure that every immigration filing is accurate, complete, and truthful.

The best defense against denaturalization has not changed:

• Obtain immigration benefits honestly.

• Maintain accurate records.

• Disclose issues when required.

• And prepare carefully before filing for citizenship.

Frequently Asked Questions About Denaturalization, Citizenship Revocation, Good Moral Character, and Naturalization in 2026

This section answers the questions immigration lawyers, naturalized citizens, green card holders, employers, families, and future citizens are asking most often following the Department of Justice’s recent denaturalization initiatives.

---

Can a Naturalized U.S. Citizen Lose Citizenship?

Yes.

A naturalized citizen may lose citizenship through a legal process called denaturalization if the government proves that citizenship was illegally procured or obtained through concealment of material facts or willful misrepresentation.

Denaturalization generally requires court proceedings and significant evidence.

The Department of Justice’s June 2026 announcement involving 17 denaturalization lawsuits reflects the government’s renewed focus on these cases, particularly where fraud or concealment is alleged.

Read the DOJ announcement: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

---

Can Someone Born a U.S. Citizen Be Denaturalized?

No.

Denaturalization applies only to individuals who became U.S. citizens through naturalization.

People who acquired citizenship by birth generally cannot be denaturalized.

---

Can a Naturalized Citizen Be Deported?

Not unless citizenship is first revoked.

Generally, the sequence is:

1. Denaturalization lawsuit;

2. Citizenship revoked;

3. Immigration status re-evaluated;

4. Possible removal proceedings.

Citizenship must usually be stripped before deportation becomes possible.

---

Does Committing a Crime After Naturalization Automatically Cause Loss of Citizenship?

No.

This is one of the most common misconceptions.

A criminal conviction occurring after naturalization does not automatically result in denaturalization.

Instead, the government usually must prove that:

• citizenship was unlawfully obtained;

• material information was concealed;

• fraud occurred during the immigration process;

• the applicant was ineligible when citizenship was granted.

---

What Is the Most Common Basis for Denaturalization?

Historically, the most common allegations involve:

• immigration fraud;

• concealment of criminal history;

• identity fraud;

• marriage fraud;

• asylum fraud;

• false statements made during immigration proceedings.

The central question is often:

Would USCIS have granted citizenship if it had known the truth?

---

What Is Illegal Procurement of Citizenship?

Illegal procurement means the applicant was never legally eligible for citizenship.

Examples may include:

• failure to meet residence requirements;

• lack of lawful permanent residence;

• inability to establish Good Moral Character;

• statutory ineligibility.

---

What Is a Material Misrepresentation?

A material misrepresentation is a false statement or omission that could influence the government’s decision.

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Maslenjak v. United States, holding that not every false statement justifies denaturalization.

Generally, the government must show that the alleged misrepresentation mattered.

---

What Is Good Moral Character?

Good Moral Character (GMC) is a legal requirement for naturalization.

USCIS evaluates factors such as:

• honesty;

• criminal history;

• tax compliance;

• family obligations;

• compliance with court orders;

• overall conduct.

Learn more in HLG’s guide to Good Moral Character and Naturalization and the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12, Part F.

---

Can USCIS Look Beyond the Five-Year Good Moral Character Period?

Yes.

Although the statutory period is often five years (or three years for some spouses of U.S. citizens), USCIS may consider earlier conduct when evaluating character, credibility, and eligibility.

Many applicants mistakenly believe older issues automatically disappear.

They often do not.

---

Can Tax Problems Affect Citizenship?

Yes.

USCIS may review:

• tax filing compliance;

• unpaid tax obligations;

• payment plans;

• financial representations.

Failure to file taxes or unresolved tax issues may create Good Moral Character concerns.

---

Can Child Support Problems Affect Naturalization?

Potentially.

USCIS may consider whether an applicant has complied with legal obligations involving:

• child support;

• court orders;

• family responsibilities.

Failure to satisfy these obligations may affect Good Moral Character determinations.

---

Can a Dismissed Criminal Case Affect Naturalization?

Potentially.

Even when charges are dismissed, USCIS may review:

• arrest records;

• police reports;

• underlying conduct;

• admissions made by the applicant.

Dismissal does not necessarily mean USCIS ignores the event.

---

Can Expunged Records Affect Citizenship?

Yes.

Immigration law frequently treats expunged records differently than criminal law.

Applicants should obtain records and review them before filing Form N-400.

---

What If I Forgot to Mention an Arrest Years Ago?

The answer depends on the facts.

Factors may include:

• whether the omission was intentional;

• whether the arrest was material;

• whether USCIS was otherwise aware of it;

• whether the omission affected eligibility.

Anyone concerned about prior omissions should consult counsel before filing a new immigration application.

---

Can Marriage Fraud Lead to Denaturalization?

Yes.

If the government proves that a green card was obtained through a fraudulent marriage, citizenship granted later may be vulnerable.

This remains one of the most common allegations in immigration fraud investigations.

For related information, review HLG’s guide to Marriage Green Cards.

---

Can Asylum Fraud Lead to Denaturalization?

Yes.

If asylum served as the foundation for permanent residence and eventual citizenship, fraud allegations affecting the asylum case may affect every benefit that followed.

---

Can False Claims to U.S. Citizenship Cause Problems?

Absolutely.

False claims to U.S. citizenship remain among the most serious immigration violations.

Examples may include:

• claiming citizenship on employment forms;

• claiming citizenship to obtain benefits;

• claiming citizenship to vote.

These cases often require careful legal analysis.

---

Can Voting Affect Citizenship?

Potentially.

Issues involving:

• voter registration;

• unlawful voting;

• false claims to citizenship;

may affect naturalization eligibility and, in some circumstances, create future complications.

Applicants should review voter registration records before filing Form N-400.

---

Can USCIS Use Social Media Against Me?

USCIS and other government agencies may review publicly available information.

Social media content may be compared against:

• immigration filings;

• employment claims;

• residence history;

• family relationships;

• travel history.

Consistency remains important.

For more discussion, see HLG’s articles regarding digital footprints and immigration screening.

---

Can USCIS Reopen Old Cases After Citizenship Is Granted?

In some circumstances, yes.

That possibility is one reason recent DOJ denaturalization initiatives have attracted so much attention.

However, reopening a case and successfully revoking citizenship are very different things.

The government still faces significant legal burdens.

---

Is There a Time Limit on Denaturalization?

In many situations, no.

Denaturalization actions may be brought many years after citizenship was granted.

This is why accuracy during the original immigration process remains so important.

---

How Common Is Denaturalization?

Denaturalization remains relatively rare compared with the millions of naturalization applications approved over the years.

The overwhelming majority of naturalized citizens will never face denaturalization proceedings.

---

Should Naturalized Citizens Be Worried About the DOJ’s New Initiative?

For most people, no.

Individuals who:

• immigrated lawfully;

• disclosed required information;

• complied with immigration laws;

• answered USCIS questions honestly;

typically face very little realistic risk.

The DOJ’s recent initiatives primarily target cases involving allegations of fraud, concealment, or unlawful procurement.

---

Should Green Card Holders Still Apply for Citizenship?

Absolutely.

Citizenship remains one of the most valuable protections available under U.S. immigration law.

Benefits include:

• voting rights;

• protection from most removal grounds;

• broader travel protections;

• ability to sponsor family members;

• eligibility for certain federal opportunities.

The lesson from recent denaturalization cases is not to avoid citizenship.

The lesson is to prepare carefully before applying.

Applicants should review HLG’s resources on U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization, Good Moral Character, Citizenship Interview Preparation, and Removal Defense.

What Is the Most Important Takeaway from the DOJ’s 2026 Denaturalization Initiative?

The most important lesson is simple:

Citizenship obtained honestly remains extraordinarily secure.

The government’s renewed focus on denaturalization is primarily directed toward cases involving alleged fraud, concealment, false identities, serious criminal conduct, and unlawful procurement of immigration benefits.

For future citizens, the best protection is preparation.

Review your immigration history.

Disclose issues honestly.

Address concerns before filing Form N-400.

And seek experienced legal guidance when necessary.

Need Help Protecting Your Path to U.S. Citizenship?

Whether you are:

• preparing to file Form N-400;

• concerned about Good Moral Character issues;

• worried about prior immigration filings;

• facing criminal history concerns;

• dealing with voter registration problems;

• responding to USCIS questions;

• confronting allegations of fraud or misrepresentation;

the immigration attorneys at Herman Legal Group can help you evaluate risks, identify solutions, and build the strongest possible citizenship case.

For more than 30 years, Richard Herman and the Herman Legal Group team have helped immigrants, families, professionals, students, business owners, and lawful permanent residents navigate the naturalization process and protect their future in the United States.

Learn more about HLG’s citizenship services at U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization or schedule a consultation to discuss your specific circumstances. Call 18008084013 or schedule your consultation online.

Resource Center: Denaturalization, Citizenship Revocation, Naturalization, Good Moral Character, and Citizenship Security

One of the goals of this guide is to create a comprehensive resource that helps immigrants, naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, employers, journalists, students, academics, and policymakers understand both the law and the practical realities surrounding denaturalization.

The following resources provide authoritative information regarding citizenship, denaturalization, good moral character, immigration fraud, and naturalization eligibility.

---

Official Government Resources

Department of Justice

DOJ’s June 2026 Denaturalization Announcement:

Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers

Earlier DOJ Denaturalization Initiative:

Justice Department Moves to Denaturalize Individuals Accused of Concealing Terrorist Support, War Crimes, Sexual Abuse, and Espionage

Department of Justice:

U.S. Department of Justice

---

USCIS Citizenship and Naturalization Resources

USCIS Policy Manual:

USCIS Policy Manual Volume 12 – Citizenship and Naturalization

Good Moral Character Guidance:

USCIS Policy Manual Volume 12, Part F – Good Moral Character

Naturalization Eligibility:

Naturalization Eligibility Requirements

Form N-400:

Application for Naturalization (Form N-400)

Naturalization Test Resources:

Prepare for the Naturalization Test

Freedom of Information Act Requests:

USCIS FOIA Requests

---

Landmark Court Decisions

Maslenjak v. United States (2017)

Perhaps the most important modern denaturalization decision.

The Supreme Court held that not every false statement justifies denaturalization. The government generally must show that the alleged misrepresentation was material to citizenship eligibility.

Maslenjak v. United States

---

Schneiderman v. United States (1943)

One of the foundational Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the importance of citizenship and the heavy burden required before citizenship can be revoked.

Schneiderman v. United States

---

Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)

A landmark citizenship case recognizing constitutional protections against involuntary loss of citizenship.

Afroyim v. Rusk

---

Major Media Coverage

CBS News:

Trump Administration Expands Denaturalization Efforts Against Naturalized Citizens

TIME:

What Trump’s New Denaturalization Push Could Mean for Naturalized Americans

Additional national reporting often appears in:

• The New York Times

• Washington Post

• NPR

• Reuters

• Associated Press

Because denaturalization remains an evolving issue, readers should monitor continuing coverage and litigation developments.

Herman Legal Group Resources

These articles and practice resources are particularly relevant in light of the DOJ’s recent denaturalization initiatives and USCIS’s increased focus on holistic Good Moral Character review. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

Citizenship and Naturalization

Citizenship and Naturalization Lawyer

Comprehensive overview of naturalization eligibility, N-400 filing requirements, continuous residence, physical presence, English and civics testing, Good Moral Character, citizenship interviews, appeals, and citizenship-related legal representation. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

U.S. Citizenship Requirements and Eligibility

U.S. Citizenship Requirements & Eligibility

Detailed discussion of:

• eligibility requirements;

• continuous residence;

• physical presence;

• Good Moral Character;

• English language requirements;

• civics testing;

• military-related citizenship provisions;

• special naturalization categories. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

New Good Moral Character Requirements Under USCIS Policy

New Good Moral Character Requirements for U.S. Citizenship: Proving You Are an “Average Citizen” Under the New USCIS Policy and the Affirmative Case for Naturalization

One of the most important HLG articles for understanding the post-2025 naturalization landscape.

Topics include:

• USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0188;

• holistic review;

• totality of the circumstances analysis;

• affirmative evidence of character;

• community involvement;

• civic responsibility;

• positive contributions;

• documentation strategies for naturalization applicants. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

Family and Community Ties as Evidence of Good Moral Character

Documenting Good Moral Character, Family and Social Ties

Explains how:

• community involvement;

• family relationships;

• social ties;

• reputation;

• civic engagement

can help establish Good Moral Character in immigration proceedings. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

Citizenship with DUI or Criminal History

Citizenship Eligibility with DUI: A Comprehensive Naturalization Guide

Discusses:

• DUI-related concerns;

• crimes involving moral turpitude;

• Good Moral Character analysis;

• rehabilitation evidence;

• naturalization risks;

• USCIS discretionary review. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

Complex Naturalization Cases Involving Criminal History

Finding the Best Attorney for Naturalization Cases with Criminal History Complications

Addresses:

• older convictions;

• arrests;

• criminal record analysis;

• N-400 strategy;

• Good Moral Character concerns;

• removal risks associated with citizenship filings. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

Citizenship Representation and Interview Preparation

Citizenship Lawyer: Complete Guide to Hiring the Right Immigration Attorney for Naturalization

Discusses:

• citizenship denials;

• Good Moral Character challenges;

• naturalization interviews;

• appeals;

• removal concerns triggered by N-400 filings;

• strategic preparation for difficult citizenship cases. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

Because many denaturalization cases begin with allegations involving the original immigration benefit, the following HLG resources may also be relevant.

Marriage-Based Immigration

Marriage Green Card Guide

Important because marriage fraud remains one of the most common allegations in denaturalization litigation.

---

Adjustment of Status

Adjustment of Status Guide

Provides background regarding the green card process that often forms the foundation for later citizenship eligibility.

Recommended Reading Order

For maximum educational value, readers should review the HLG materials in this order:

1. Citizenship and Naturalization Lawyer

2. U.S. Citizenship Requirements & Eligibility

3. New Good Moral Character Requirements for U.S. Citizenship

4. Documenting Good Moral Character, Family and Social Ties

5. Citizenship Eligibility with DUI

6. Naturalization Cases with Criminal History Complications

7. Citizenship Lawyer Guide

Together, these resources create a strong internal content cluster around naturalization, Good Moral Character, citizenship eligibility, criminal history, citizenship preparation, and denaturalization risk. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

 

The Immigration Equities Package for Adjustment of Status: How to Win Favorable Discretion in Cases After USCIS Memo PM-602-0199

Understanding Discretion — The Most Important Concept Most Green Card Applicants Never Think About

Quick Takeaway

Most adjustment of status applicants focus almost entirely on eligibility.

They ask:

• Am I eligible for a green card?
• Is my priority date current?
• Do I qualify through marriage, family, employment, or another category?
• Can I file Form I-485?

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.

 

Why This Topic Suddenly Matters

When USCIS issued PM-602-0199 on May 21, 2026, the immigration community reacted immediately.

The memorandum repeatedly described adjustment of status as:

• a discretionary benefit;
• administrative grace;
• extraordinary relief;
• an alternative to the normal consular processing system.

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.

The Difference Between Eligibility and Discretion

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

Eligibility asks:

• Is there an approved immigrant petition?
• Is a visa available?
• Was the applicant inspected and admitted or paroled?
• Does the applicant qualify under INA §245?
• Is the applicant admissible?

These are threshold questions.

An applicant who fails them generally cannot obtain adjustment.

Discretion

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:

• immigration history;
• compliance with prior visa conditions;
• criminal history;
• honesty and credibility;
• public safety concerns;
• humanitarian factors;
• family circumstances;
• overall equities.

Discretion is not about whether someone qualifies.

It is about whether approval is warranted.

The Single Most Important Word in the Adjustment of Status Statute

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.

Why Adjustment of Status Is Different From Consular Processing

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:

• continuity of employment;
• family stability;
• reduced travel risks;
• procedural efficiency;
• greater predictability.

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.

Why the Immigration Bar Reacted So Strongly

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:

• spouses of U.S. citizens;
• parents of U.S. citizens;
• employment-based professionals;
• physicians;
• researchers;
• international students;
• entrepreneurs;
• refugees and asylees;
• humanitarian applicants.

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.

The Subsequent Clarifications

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.

 

What Applicants Should Learn From the PM-602-0199 Debate

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:

• family unity;
• humanitarian interests;
• economic growth;
• community stability;
• public benefit;
• long-term national interests.

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!

Richard Herman’s Observation

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:

• extensive community service;
• long-term tax compliance;
• exceptional employment history;
• strong family ties;
• compelling humanitarian factors;
• evidence of rehabilitation;
• substantial contributions to the United States.

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.

The Legal Foundation of Discretion

Where USCIS Gets the Power to Say “Yes” — or “No”

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.

The Statutory Foundation: INA §245

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.

The USCIS Policy Manual Already Recognized Discretion

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:

• positive factors;
• adverse factors;
• humanitarian considerations;
• public-interest considerations;
• overall circumstances.

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.

Matter of Arai: The Foundation of Favorable Discretion

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:

Favorable Factors Matter

The Board emphasized that officers should consider positive equities.

Adverse Factors Matter

Negative factors are not ignored.

The Entire Record Matters

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.

Matter of Marin: The Balancing Test

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:

Favorable Factors

against

Adverse Factors

Examples of favorable factors identified in Marin include:

• family ties in the United States;
• long residence;
• hardship;
• employment history;
• property ownership;
• community service;
• rehabilitation;
• good moral character.

Examples of adverse factors include:

• criminal history;
• immigration violations;
• fraud;
• repeated misconduct;
• public-safety concerns.

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.

Matter of Mendez-Moralez: The Modern Equities Framework

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:

Positive Factors

• family ties;
• residence in the United States;
• hardship to family members;
• employment history;
• community contributions;
• rehabilitation;
• good moral character.

Negative Factors

• criminal conduct;
• immigration violations;
• dishonesty;
• other adverse behavior.

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.

Patel v. Garland: Why Discretion Matters More Than Ever

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.

The Difference Between Eligibility Factors and Equities

Many applicants confuse evidence proving eligibility with evidence supporting discretion.

They are not the same.

Eligibility Evidence

Examples include:

• approved I-130 petitions;
• approved I-140 petitions;
• birth certificates;
• marriage certificates;
• admission records;
• visa documentation.

These documents establish legal qualification.

Equities Evidence

Examples include:

• community service;
• tax compliance;
• rehabilitation;
• employment achievements;
• family hardship;
• caregiving responsibilities;
• military service;
• charitable activities.

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.

How Officers Actually Weigh Cases

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:

• What positive factors exist?
• What negative factors exist?
• How serious are the adverse issues?
• How extensive are the positive equities?
• Has rehabilitation occurred?
• Would approval promote family unity?
• Would approval advance humanitarian goals?
• Would approval benefit the public interest?

These are inherently discretionary judgments.

That is why two applicants with similar legal eligibility may experience very different outcomes.

What Counts as a Strong Positive Equity in a Green Card Application?

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:

Family Unity

Particularly involving:

• U.S. citizen spouses;
• U.S. citizen children;
• elderly parents;
• dependent family members.

Long-Term Residence

Years of productive residence often carry significant weight.

Employment and Tax Compliance

Consistent work history and tax compliance demonstrate responsibility and contribution. Documentation of U.S. tax compliance strengthens an equities package.

Community Involvement

Volunteer work, religious participation, and civic engagement often strengthen discretionary arguments. Community membership can support positive factors in an adjustment application.

Rehabilitation

Where adverse factors exist, evidence of rehabilitation may become one of the most important components of the case.

Humanitarian Considerations

Medical issues, disabilities, caregiving responsibilities, and country-condition concerns can all influence discretionary analysis.

Why PM-602-0199 Makes These Cases Newly Important

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:

• family unity;
• economic stability;
• humanitarian fairness;
• community welfare;
• the United States as a whole.

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.

PM-602-0199, the Backlash, and the “Walk-Back”

What Actually Happened — And What Applicants Should Learn From It

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.

The Memo That Shook the Immigration Bar

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:

• a discretionary benefit;
• administrative grace;
• extraordinary relief;
• an exception to the normal immigrant visa process.

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.

Why the Phrase “Extraordinary Relief” Triggered Alarm

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:

• spouses of U.S. citizens;
• parents of U.S. citizens;
• employment-based professionals;
• physicians;
• researchers;
• international students;
• entrepreneurs;
• refugees and asylees.

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.

AILA and the Immigration Bar Respond

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:

• pending adjustment applications or already pending cases might be denied because USCIS has not provided a grandfathering provision for pending cases;
• adjustment cases might be converted into consular processing cases;
• family-based green card applications could become more difficult;
• employment-based adjustment strategies might no longer be reliable.

For law firms across the country, the volume of inquiries increased almost immediately.

Employers, Universities, and Hospitals Became Concerned

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.

National Media Coverage

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.

The Practical Reality: USCIS Could Not Simply Eliminate Adjustment

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:

• family-based immigration;
• employment-based immigration;
• physician recruitment;
• higher education;
• scientific research;
• business operations;
• workforce planning.

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.

The “Walk-Back”

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:

• adjustment remained available;
• officers would continue conducting individualized reviews;
• the memorandum did not require mass consular processing;
• applicants would still be reviewed individually under existing adjustment of status policy.

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.

Why the Walk-Back Matters More Than Most People Realize

Many observers focused on the controversy itself.

The more important issue may be what happened afterward.

The walk-back effectively confirmed several important realities.

Reality #1: Adjustment Is Not Going Away

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.

Reality #2: Discretion Is Here to Stay

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.

Reality #3: Officers Have Been Reminded to Document Discretion

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:

• interview questioning;
• RFE issuance;
• NOID issuance;
• case documentation;
• written decisions.

Even if approval rates remain relatively stable, discretionary reasoning may receive greater attention than in previous years.

What Attorneys Across the Country Are Reporting

Although implementation continues to evolve, many immigration lawyers report several emerging trends.

These include:

More Questions About Immigration History

Officers appear increasingly interested in understanding prior status compliance, travel history, previous interactions with immigration agencies, and verifying the applicant’s immigration status.

Greater Focus on Credibility

Consistency across forms, interviews, supporting evidence, and prior filings appears increasingly important.

More Interest in Humanitarian Factors

Family circumstances, caregiving responsibilities, medical conditions, and hardship evidence may be receiving greater attention.

Increased Discussion of Positive Equities

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.

What Applicants Should Do Right Now

The lesson from PM-602-0199 is not panic.

The lesson is preparation.

Applicants should avoid two mistakes.

Mistake #1: Assume the Memo Changes Nothing

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.

Mistake #2: Assume Every Case Will Be Denied

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

The better strategy is simple:

Build the strongest case possible.

That means:

• proving eligibility;
• documenting admissibility;
• preparing for interviews;
• anticipating concerns;
• presenting favorable equities that require careful preparation as structured narrative evidence, not just a stack of loose documents.

The applicants best positioned to succeed under any discretionary framework are those who proactively demonstrate why approval serves the interests of:

• family unity;
• economic contribution;
• humanitarian fairness;
• community stability;
• public benefit.

That is precisely why Immigration Equities Packages have become such an important topic.

Richard Herman’s Prediction

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?”

What USCIS Officers Are Most Likely Looking For Now

Understanding the Positive Equities That Can Strengthen an Adjustment of Status Case

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.

• Certain equities repeatedly appear.
• Certain facts consistently help applicants.
• Certain evidence tells a compelling story.

The strongest cases are often those that answer a simple question:

Why is approving this application the right decision?

The Most Important Shift: From Eligibility to Narrative

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:

• Form I-485;
• supporting civil documents;
• medical examination;
• financial sponsorship forms;
• immigration records.

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:

• who the applicant is;
• what the applicant has contributed;
• why family members depend upon the applicant;
• why approval advances humanitarian interests;
• why approval benefits the United States.

Equity #1: Family Unity

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:

• U.S. citizen spouses;
• lawful permanent resident spouses;
• U.S. citizen children;
• dependent children;
• elderly parents;
• disabled family members;
• caregiving responsibilities.

The more significant the family impact, the stronger the equity may become.

Why Family Evidence Matters

Many applicants submit only basic proof of the relationship.

For example:

• marriage certificate;
• birth certificate;
• adoption decree.

Those documents establish eligibility.

But they rarely explain the human impact of the case.

An effective discretionary presentation often goes further.

It may demonstrate:

• emotional dependency;
• financial dependency;
• caregiving obligations;
• educational needs of children;
• medical needs of family members;
• family stability concerns.

Officers evaluating discretion frequently respond to evidence that shows real-world consequences rather than merely legal relationships.

Equity #2: Long-Term Residence in the United States

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:

• community integration;
• cultural assimilation;
• employment stability;
• family development;
• educational achievement.

For some applicants, years of lawful residence may become one of the strongest favorable factors in the case.

Equity #3: Employment and Economic Contributions

One of the most powerful but often underutilized equities involves economic contribution.

USCIS officers frequently encounter applicants who:

• pay taxes;
• support families;
• employ workers;
• provide professional services;
• contribute to local economies.

These contributions matter.

Particularly strong examples include:

Healthcare Workers

Physicians.

Dentists.

Nurses.

Therapists.

Healthcare shortages throughout the United States make these equities especially compelling.

Researchers and Scientists

Researchers often contribute innovations that benefit public health, technology, education, and national competitiveness.

Entrepreneurs

Business owners may create jobs and stimulate local economic activity.

Long-Term Employees

Applicants with substantial work histories often demonstrate reliability, stability, and integration into American society.

Equity #4: Tax Compliance

One of the simplest yet most persuasive equities is tax compliance.

Tax records often demonstrate:

• responsibility;
• honesty;
• economic contribution;
• respect for legal obligations.

Applicants who have consistently filed taxes frequently possess evidence that strengthens both credibility and discretionary arguments.

Conversely, unresolved tax issues can create unnecessary complications.

Equity #5: Education and Future Potential

Education frequently receives less attention than it deserves.

Yet educational achievements often provide compelling evidence of future contributions.

Particularly strong factors include:

• college degrees;
• graduate degrees;
• professional licenses;
• research publications;
• certifications;
• scholarships;
• academic awards.

International students may have especially strong equities when they demonstrate:

• academic excellence;
• community involvement;
• future workforce contributions.

This is one reason many F-1 students may benefit from proactive discretionary submissions.

Equity #6: Community Involvement

Some of the most persuasive evidence in an immigration file never appears on government forms.

Community involvement may include:

• volunteer work;
• religious service;
• nonprofit participation;
• youth mentorship;
• coaching;
• civic engagement.

Such evidence demonstrates something important:

The applicant is invested in the community beyond personal gain.

That message can be extremely powerful.

Equity #7: Character and Reputation

Many officers seek evidence answering a simple question:

What kind of person is this applicant?

Character evidence may come from:

• employers;
• teachers;
• clergy;
• community leaders;
• coworkers;
• neighbors.

Strong character evidence is often specific.

The best letters do not simply say:

“He is a good person.”

Instead, they describe:

• actions;
• achievements;
• responsibilities;
• examples of integrity.

Specific examples are more persuasive than general praise.

Equity #8: Rehabilitation

For applicants with adverse factors, rehabilitation may become the single most important equity in the case.

This issue often arises when applicants have:

• arrests;
• convictions;
• substance abuse histories;
• prior misconduct;
• immigration violations.

USCIS officers frequently focus on whether rehabilitation has occurred.

Relevant evidence may include:

• counseling records;
• treatment completion;
• educational achievements;
• stable employment;
• community service;
• character references.

The passage of time also matters.

A mistake from twenty years ago may carry less weight than a recent incident.

Equity #9: Humanitarian Considerations

Humanitarian factors have always played an important role in discretionary adjudications.

Examples include:

• serious illness;
• disability;
• caregiving obligations;
• mental health concerns;
• special-needs children;
• country-condition concerns.

These factors may not independently determine a case.

However, they often become important components of the overall discretionary analysis.

Equity #10: Service to Others

Among the most powerful equities are those demonstrating service.

Examples include:

• military service;
• healthcare service;
• teaching;
• emergency response work;
• nonprofit leadership;
• community advocacy.

Such evidence often helps officers understand the broader impact of the applicant’s presence in the United States.

The Hidden Equity Most Applicants Ignore

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 Equities Memorandum

An effective memorandum:

• identifies positive factors;
• addresses negative factors;
• explains context;
• cites legal authority;
• organizes supporting evidence;
• tells the applicant’s story.

Think of the memorandum as the bridge between the evidence and the decision-maker.

Without that bridge, even strong evidence may be overlooked.

What Officers Are Really Evaluating

Although every officer is different, most discretionary reviews ultimately focus on several questions:

Is this person contributing to society?

• Is this person supporting family members?
• Has this person demonstrated responsibility?
• If mistakes occurred, has rehabilitation taken place?
• Would approval promote family unity?
• Would approval serve humanitarian interests?
• Would approval benefit the United States?

The strongest adjustment cases answer all of those questions before USCIS ever asks them.

Richard Herman’s Observation

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.

• They are persuasive.
• They tell a story.
• They demonstrate value.
• They show contribution.
• They establish credibility.
• They explain hardship.
• They humanize the applicant.

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.

The Immigration Equities Package: 100 Documents That Can Help Win Favorable Discretion Under PM-602-0199

The Ultimate Adjustment of Status Evidence Checklist

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:

• family hardship;
• economic contributions;
• community involvement;
• rehabilitation;
• future potential.

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.

Category 1: Family Unity and Family Ties

Documents 1–20

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.

Core Relationship Documents

1. Marriage Certificate

2. Children’s Birth Certificates

3. Stepchild Birth Certificates

4. Adoption Decrees

5. Guardianship Orders

Evidence of Family Integration

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

Family Dependency Evidence

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

Family Affidavits

16. Spouse Declaration

17. Child Declaration

18. Parent Declaration

19. Sibling Declaration

20. Extended Family Support Letters

Practice Tip

Do not simply prove the relationship exists.

Explain why the relationship matters.

A marriage certificate establishes a marriage.

A detailed affidavit explains:

• emotional dependency;
• financial dependency;
• caregiving responsibilities;
• family stability.

The second document is often far more powerful.

Category 2: Hardship and Humanitarian Considerations

Documents 21–35

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.

Medical Evidence

21. Physician Letters

22. Specialist Reports

23. Hospital Records

24. Disability Documentation

25. Medication Records

Mental Health Evidence

26. Psychological Evaluations

27. Psychiatric Evaluations

28. Counseling Records

29. Trauma Assessments

30. Mental Health Treatment Plans

Caregiving Evidence

31. Evidence Applicant Is Primary Caregiver

32. Home Health Documentation

33. Special Needs Child Documentation

34. Elder Care Documentation

35. Caregiver Affidavits

Why This Evidence Matters

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.

Category 3: Employment and Economic Contributions

Documents 36–50

Economic contribution is frequently underestimated.

Many applicants contribute enormously to their communities and local economies.

Employment Records

36. Employment Verification Letter

37. Promotion Records

38. Performance Reviews

39. Professional Awards

40. Letters from Supervisors

Income and Tax Records

41. IRS Tax Transcripts

42. W-2 Forms

43. 1099 Forms

44. Payroll Records

45. State Tax Returns

Business and Entrepreneurship

46. Articles of Incorporation

47. Business Licenses

48. Employee Rosters

49. Payroll Summaries

50. Economic Impact Statements

High-Value Cases

Particularly compelling evidence often comes from:

• physicians;
• nurses;
• dentists;
• healthcare workers;
• researchers;
• professors;
• engineers;
• entrepreneurs;
• business owners.

These applicants frequently possess strong public-benefit equities.

Category 4: Education and Future Contributions

Documents 51–60

One of the most overlooked discretionary factors is future potential.

Academic Records

51. High School Diploma

52. College Degree

53. Graduate Degree

54. Academic Transcript

55. Professional Certification

Achievement Records

56. Scholarships

57. Academic Awards

58. Research Publications

59. Conference Presentations

60. Faculty Recommendation Letters

Why Students Should Pay Attention

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:

• academic excellence;
• leadership;
• research contributions;
• community service;
• future workforce potential.

Those factors can be highly persuasive.

Category 5: Community Service and Civic Engagement

Documents 61–75

One of the strongest indicators of integration is community involvement.

Volunteer Service

61. Volunteer Logs

62. Nonprofit Service Records

63. Food Bank Service Records

64. Community Center Service Records

65. Youth Mentoring Records

Religious and Civic Participation

66. Church Leadership Records

67. Synagogue Participation Records

68. Mosque Participation Records

69. Faith-Based Volunteer Documentation

70. Civic Organization Memberships

Community Recognition

71. Community Awards

72. Certificates of Appreciation

73. Local Media Coverage

74. Letters from Community Leaders

75. Letters from Clergy

What Makes Community Evidence Persuasive?

The strongest evidence demonstrates consistent involvement over time.

One volunteer event is good.

Years of service are better.

Category 6: Character and Rehabilitation

Documents 76–90

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.

Character Evidence

76. Employer Character Letter

77. Coworker Character Letter

78. Teacher Recommendation

79. Clergy Letter

80. Community Leader Letter

Rehabilitation Evidence

81. Counseling Completion Certificates

82. Substance Abuse Treatment Completion Records

83. Anger Management Completion Certificates

84. Probation Completion Records

85. Community Service Completion Records

Evidence of Growth

86. Educational Achievements After Incident

87. Employment Success After Incident

88. Volunteer Work After Incident

89. Family Responsibility Evidence

90. Psychological Rehabilitation Evaluation

Important Principle

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.

Category 7: Exceptional and Extraordinary Equities

Documents 91–100

These documents frequently transform an ordinary case into an extraordinary one.

Public Service

91. Military Service Records

92. Family Military Service Records

93. First Responder Service Records

Professional Excellence

94. National Awards

95. Industry Awards

96. Professional Recognition

Extraordinary Contributions

97. Published Works

98. Media Coverage

99. Evidence of Exceptional Talent

100. Attorney Equities Memorandum

The Most Important Document on This Entire List

Many applicants assume the most important document is:

• a tax return;
• a diploma;
• a medical record;
• a marriage certificate.

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:

• positive factors;
• adverse factors;
• mitigating circumstances;
• humanitarian concerns;
• legal authority;
• reasons favorable discretion should be exercised.

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.

How to Organize an Immigration Equities Package

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.

Richard Herman’s Observation

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:

1. They prove eligibility.
2. They demonstrate positive equities.
3. They make it easy for the officer to conclude that favorable discretion is warranted.

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.

The Attorney Equities Memorandum

The Most Important Document Most Adjustment Applicants Never Submit

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:

• an ordinary application file; or
• a compelling request for favorable discretion.

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.

What Is 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:

• hundreds of pages of records;
• dozens of affidavits;
• years of tax returns;
• medical evidence;
• employment records;
• educational achievements.

The officer sees documents.

The memorandum explains what those documents mean.

It answers the question:

Why should USCIS approve this case?

Why PM-602-0199 Makes These Memoranda More Important

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.

• They highlight them.
• They organize them.
• They explain them.
• They frame them within the governing legal standards.

The Officer Reviewing Your File Has Limited Time

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:

• forms;
• exhibits;
• government databases;
• interview notes;
• prior filings;
• background checks.

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:

• What matters.
• Why it matters.
• Where to find it.
• How it relates to discretion.

This alone can dramatically improve the effectiveness of a filing.

What an Effective Equities Memorandum Looks Like

The strongest memoranda generally follow a consistent structure.

Section One: Introduction

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 applicant;
• the basis for adjustment;
• the procedural posture;
• the purpose of the memorandum.

The goal is clarity.

Section Two: Procedural History

Many immigration cases involve complex histories.

Examples include:

• prior visa classifications;
• prior adjustment filings;
• SEVIS complications;
• employment authorization issues;
• prior removal proceedings;
• waivers;
• travel history.

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.

Section Three: Legal Framework

This section explains the governing legal standards.

Depending upon the case, attorneys may discuss:

• INA §245;
• the USCIS Policy Manual;
• Matter of Arai;
• Matter of Marin;
• Matter of Mendez-Moralez;
• relevant federal court decisions.

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.

The Most Important Section: Positive Equities

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.

Family Unity

Discuss:

• spouse;
• children;
• parents;
• caregiving responsibilities;
• dependency relationships.

Do not merely state that family members exist.

Explain the role the applicant plays within the family.

Employment and Economic Contributions

Discuss:

• employment history;
• professional achievements;
• tax compliance;
• business ownership;
• job creation.

Explain how the applicant contributes to the economy.

Education and Future Potential

Discuss:

• academic achievement;
• professional licensing;
• research;
• scholarships;
• future career plans.

This section can be particularly powerful for students, physicians, researchers, and highly skilled professionals.

Community Contributions

Discuss:

• volunteer work;
• nonprofit involvement;
• religious participation;
• civic engagement;
• leadership roles.

This evidence often demonstrates integration into American society.

Humanitarian Factors

Discuss:

• medical conditions;
• caregiving obligations;
• disabilities;
• mental health concerns;
• special-needs children;
• country-condition concerns.

These factors often carry significant weight.

Rehabilitation

Where adverse factors exist, rehabilitation should be addressed directly.

Avoiding the issue is usually a mistake.

Instead:

• acknowledge the problem;
• explain the circumstances;
• demonstrate growth;
• document rehabilitation.

This approach often enhances credibility.

Addressing Negative Factors

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:

• status violations;
• unlawful employment;
• prior overstays;
• arrests;
• convictions;
• prior immigration violations.

The discussion should then explain:

• context;
• mitigation;
• rehabilitation;
• positive equities outweighing negative factors.

This is the balancing framework reflected in decisions such as Matter of Marin and Matter of Mendez-Moralez.

The Psychology of Persuasion

The best memoranda do more than recite facts.

They help the officer understand the applicant as a person.

Consider the difference.

Weak Presentation

Applicant has two children.

Strong Presentation

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.

Why Affidavits Matter

One of the most underutilized tools in discretionary advocacy is the affidavit.

Documents prove events.

Affidavits explain meaning.

An affidavit may explain:

• family dependence;
• medical needs;
• educational goals;
• rehabilitation efforts;
• community involvement.

The strongest affidavits are detailed, specific, and credible.

They tell stories.

They provide examples.

They explain consequences.

Case Study: The Physician

Consider a physician seeking adjustment.

The basic filing proves eligibility.

An equities memorandum may additionally explain:

• physician shortages in the community;
• patients served;
• hospital support;
• research contributions;
• public-health impact.

The physician becomes more than a beneficiary.

The physician becomes an asset to the community.

Case Study: The F-1 Student

Consider an F-1 student who experienced a status violation.

A strong memorandum may discuss:

• academic achievements;
• scholarships;
• research contributions;
• volunteer work;
• future professional goals;
• rehabilitation of any compliance issues.

The narrative shifts from a technical violation to a broader story of contribution and future potential.

Case Study: The Parent of U.S. Citizen Children

The strongest memoranda often focus heavily on:

• caregiving;
• educational involvement;
• medical responsibilities;
• emotional dependency.

These cases frequently contain powerful family-unity equities.

The Most Common Mistakes

After reviewing thousands of immigration cases, several recurring mistakes appear.

Mistake #1: No Memorandum

The evidence is submitted without explanation.

 

Mistake #2: Generic Memorandum

The memorandum contains legal conclusions but little human detail.

 

Mistake #3: Ignoring Negative Factors

The memorandum fails to address known issues.

 

Mistake #4: Excessive Length Without Organization

More pages do not necessarily create a stronger case.

 

Mistake #5: No Narrative

The officer receives documents but never learns the applicant’s story.

Richard Herman’s Observation

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.

• They are persuasive.
• They explain who the applicant is.
• They explain why the applicant matters.
• They explain why approval serves family unity, humanitarian interests, economic stability, and the public good.
• The Attorney Equities Memorandum is where all of those themes come together.

It is often the document that transforms a collection of exhibits into a compelling case for favorable discretion.

Building Immigration Equities Packages for Real Cases

Strategic Guidance for Marriage Cases, F-1 Students, H-1B Professionals, Physicians, Entrepreneurs, Waiver Applicants, and Applicants with Adverse Factors

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 Adjustment Cases

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.

 

What USCIS Is Looking For

Beyond proving the marriage itself, officers may evaluate:

• family stability;
• caregiving responsibilities;
• shared financial obligations;
• community integration;
• future plans;
• hardship implications.

 

Strong Marriage-Based Equities

Examples include:

Family Dependency

Evidence that one spouse relies heavily on the other emotionally, financially, medically, or practically.

Parenting Responsibilities

Evidence of involvement with:

• school activities;
• medical care;
• extracurricular programs;
• transportation.

Community Ties

Evidence that the couple has become integrated into the local community.

Long-Term Stability

Evidence of shared planning and commitment.

 

Common Mistake

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

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.

 

Strong Student Equities

Academic Achievement

• GPA
• scholarships
• awards
• dean’s list recognition

Research Contributions

• publications
• presentations
• patents
• laboratory work

Community Involvement

• tutoring
• mentoring
• volunteer activities

Future Contributions

One of the most persuasive arguments may be:

• What will this student contribute over the next 20 years?
• Future physicians.
• Future engineers.
• Future researchers.
• Future entrepreneurs.
• Future educators.

These are powerful equities.

 

Example

A Belarusian student pursuing higher education may possess strong discretionary factors including:

• academic excellence;
• community integration;
• family residing in the United States;
• future workforce contributions;
• humanitarian concerns involving conditions abroad.

A strong equities package should address all of them.

 

H-1B Professionals

H-1B professionals often possess equities that are surprisingly underdeveloped in adjustment filings.

Many applications focus exclusively on:

• employment authorization;
• labor certification;
• immigrant petition approval.

Yet these applicants frequently possess exceptional discretionary factors.

 

High-Value H-1B Equities

Specialized Skills

Evidence demonstrating unique expertise.

Economic Contributions

Evidence showing:

• taxes paid;
• projects completed;
• revenue generated;
• innovation created.

Community Involvement

Volunteer and charitable activities often strengthen the narrative.

Family Stability

Many H-1B workers have established deep roots in the United States.

What Officers May Find Persuasive

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.

 

Physicians and Healthcare Workers

Healthcare professionals may possess some of the strongest equities available in adjustment practice.

This is particularly true in underserved communities.

 

Evidence That Carries Significant Weight

Physician Shortage Data

Documentation demonstrating community need.

Employer Support Letters

Hospital systems can often provide compelling evidence.

Patient Impact Evidence

Without violating privacy rules, employers may document:

• services provided;
• populations served;
• specialty shortages.

Research Contributions

Academic physicians often possess additional equities through:

• publications;
• teaching;
• research activities.

 

Why These Cases Are Powerful

Healthcare workers frequently embody multiple positive factors simultaneously:

• public benefit;
• economic contribution;
• community service;
• humanitarian value.

Few categories offer a stronger discretionary narrative.

 

Entrepreneurs and Business Owners

Entrepreneurs often focus almost entirely on business records.

That is only part of the story.

The strongest cases explain broader impact.

 

Key Equities

Job Creation

How many workers depend on the business?

Economic Activity

What revenue is generated?

Community Impact

How does the business serve local residents?

Innovation

Has the business developed new products or services?

What Officers Should Understand

A successful entrepreneur is not merely seeking a green card.

The entrepreneur may support:

• employees;
• customers;
• vendors;
• local economic development.

That context matters.

 

Waiver Applicants

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.

Strong Waiver Equities

• Family Hardship
• Rehabilitation
• Community Contributions
• Long-Term Residence
• Tax Compliance
• Stable Employment
• Caregiving Responsibilities

Strategic Observation

Many waiver applicants focus entirely on hardship.

That is understandable.

However, hardship is often only one component of a broader discretionary argument.

 

Applicants with Criminal History

Perhaps no category benefits more from proactive discretionary advocacy.

 

What USCIS Wants to Know

The central question is usually not:

Did something happen?

The agency often already knows the answer.

The more important question becomes:

What happened afterward?

 

Strong Rehabilitation Evidence

• Treatment Records
• Counseling Records
• Educational Achievement
• Employment Success
• Community Service
• Family Responsibilities
• Character References
• Psychological Evaluations

 

The Passage of Time Matters

A single incident fifteen years ago may be viewed differently than a recent incident.

Evidence demonstrating sustained rehabilitation often becomes critical.

 

Applicants with Immigration Violations

This category may become especially important under PM-602-0199.

Examples include:

• overstays;
• status violations;
• unauthorized employment;
• prior removal proceedings;
• compliance issues.

 

What Officers Often Evaluate

• Why Did the Violation Occur?
• Was It Intentional?
• What Has Happened Since?
• What Positive Equities Exist?
• Does the Record Demonstrate Responsibility?

 

Common Mistake

Many applicants attempt to minimize or ignore prior immigration issues.

That approach can undermine credibility.

A better strategy often involves:

• acknowledging the issue;
• providing context;
• documenting compliance efforts;
• emphasizing positive equities.

The Cases Most Likely to Benefit from an Equities Package

Although every adjustment case may benefit from additional discretionary evidence, certain categories stand out.

These include:

• Marriage-Based Applicants
• F-1 Students
• Physicians
• H-1B Professionals
• Entrepreneurs
• Applicants with Arrest Histories
• Applicants with Status Violations
• Waiver Applicants
• Applicants Responding to RFEs
• Applicants Responding to NOIDs
• Applicants with Complex Immigration Histories

 

What All Successful Cases Have in Common

Despite their differences, successful discretionary cases tend to share several characteristics.

They are:

• Organized
• Credible
• Well-Documented
• Honest About Adverse Factors
• Supported by Independent Evidence
• Focused on Positive Equities
• Most importantly, they tell a coherent story.

 

Richard Herman’s Prediction

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.

The Future of Adjustment of Status

Richard Herman’s Predictions on PM-602-0199, Discretion, RFEs, NOIDs, AI Review, and the Next Generation of Immigration Advocacy

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.

 

Prediction #1:

Adjustment of Status Cases Will Become More Document-Intensive

Historically, many adjustment cases were filed with:

• required forms;
• civil documents;
• medical examinations;
• financial sponsorship evidence.

For straightforward cases, that was often sufficient.

The future may look different.

Increasingly, attorneys are likely to submit:

• discretionary memoranda;
• community evidence;
• rehabilitation evidence;
• hardship documentation;
• employment impact records;
• humanitarian evidence.

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.

 

Prediction #2:

RFEs and NOIDs May Become More Sophisticated

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:

• Requests for Evidence (RFEs);
• Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs);
• interviews;
• follow-up questioning.

As discretion receives greater emphasis, officers may seek more information regarding:

• family relationships;
• employment history;
• tax compliance;
• immigration history;
• rehabilitation;
• public-benefit factors.

Applicants should not be surprised if future RFEs increasingly focus on discretionary issues rather than purely technical eligibility questions.

 

Prediction #3:

Credibility Will Become Increasingly Important

One theme appears repeatedly throughout immigration law.

Credibility matters.

When officers evaluate discretion, they often examine whether the applicant’s story is:

• consistent;
• supported;
• documented;
• believable.

Even strong equities may lose value if credibility concerns arise.

This is one reason attorneys increasingly focus on ensuring consistency across:

• prior visa applications;
• adjustment filings;
• interviews;
• social media;
• supporting affidavits;
• government records.

The strongest cases are often those with the fewest inconsistencies.

 

Prediction #4:

AI and Technology Will Play a Larger Role

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:

• data analytics;
• fraud detection tools;
• digital review systems;
• automated case management technologies.

While AI does not make immigration decisions independently, technology increasingly assists officers in identifying:

• inconsistencies;
• anomalies;
• omissions;
• patterns;
• potential credibility concerns.

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.

Prediction #5:

Attorney Equities Memoranda Will Become More Common

For years, detailed legal memoranda were typically associated with:

• waivers;
• motions;
• appeals;
• complex removal cases.

That may change.

Increasingly, attorneys may begin treating adjustment filings more like discretionary advocacy packages.

The result could be a significant increase in:

• legal briefs;
• equities memoranda;
• exhibit indexes;
• discretionary submissions.

In many cases, the memorandum may become one of the most important documents in the file.

 

Prediction #6:

Litigation Will Continue

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:

• arbitrary decision-making;
• inconsistent adjudications;
• due process concerns;
• Administrative Procedure Act challenges;
• interpretation of discretionary authority.

Federal courts will likely continue shaping the boundaries of adjustment adjudications.

Prediction #7:

Family-Based Cases Will Receive Increased Attention

Family-based immigration remains one of the largest adjustment categories.

As discretion receives more attention, officers may increasingly focus on:

• bona fide relationships;
• caregiving responsibilities;
• dependency;
• family hardship;
• long-term stability.

Applicants should expect officers to look beyond basic eligibility documents.

The strength of the overall family narrative may become increasingly important.

 

Prediction #8:

Employment-Based Cases Will Need Better Storytelling

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.

 

Prediction #9:

Humanitarian Evidence Will Carry Greater Weight

One lesson from decades of immigration practice is that humanitarian factors often resonate strongly with decision-makers.

Examples include:

• serious illness;
• disability;
• caregiving obligations;
• special-needs children;
• mental health concerns;
• humanitarian conditions abroad.

These factors have always mattered.

PM-602-0199 may encourage applicants and attorneys to document them more thoroughly.

 

Prediction #10:

The Strongest Cases Will Be Built Long Before Filing

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:

• pay taxes;
• volunteer;
• pursue education;
• maintain employment;
• support family members;
• contribute to their communities;

often accumulate positive equities naturally.

The challenge is documenting them effectively.

 

What PM-602-0199 May Ultimately Be Remembered For

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.

 

The Rise of Equities-Based Immigration Advocacy

Increasingly, successful cases may depend upon an applicant’s ability to demonstrate:

• Family Unity
• Community Contribution
• Economic Value
• Humanitarian Need
• Rehabilitation
• Future Potential
• Public Benefit

These concepts have always existed.

The difference is that more people are paying attention to them now.

Richard Herman’s Final Observation

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.

 

Frequently Asked Questions About PM-602-0199, Adjustment of Status Discretion, and Immigration Equities Packages

The Ultimate FAQ Resource for Green Card Applicants in 2026

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:

• Matter of Arai
• Matter of Marin
• Matter of Mendez-Moralez
• Patel v. Garland

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:

• marriage-based applicants;
• F-1 students;
• H-1B professionals;
• physicians;
• entrepreneurs;
• waiver applicants;
• applicants with prior immigration violations;
• applicants with arrest histories;
• applicants responding to RFEs or NOIDs.

---

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:

• with the initial filing;
• at the interview;
• in response to an RFE;
• in response to a NOID;
• during litigation.

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:

• family ties;
• employment history;
• tax compliance;
• education;
• volunteer work;
• rehabilitation;
• humanitarian concerns.

---

What is the strongest positive equity?

There is no universal answer.

The most persuasive equity depends on the case.

Commonly powerful factors include:

• U.S. citizen children;
• caregiving responsibilities;
• long-term residence;
• significant community service;
• military service;
• extraordinary professional contributions.

---

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:

• public benefit;
• community service;
• workforce contributions;
• humanitarian impact.

---

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:

• the violation;
• the circumstances;
• the passage of time;
• the existence of positive equities.

---

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:

1. Prove eligibility.
2. Build positive equities.
3. Present a persuasive, well-documented narrative.

Applicants who do all three are often in the strongest position.

 

 

Final Thoughts: The Future Belongs to the Best-Prepared Applicants

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:

• eligibility;
• documentation;
• credibility;
• storytelling;
• discretionary advocacy.

The applicants who understand this shift early will often be best positioned for success.

 

 

Resource Center

PM-602-0199, Adjustment of Status Discretion, Immigration Equities Packages, RFEs, NOIDs, Waivers, and Green Card Strategy

USCIS and Government Resources

• USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199: Adjustment of Status and Discretion
• USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status
• USCIS Adjustment of Status Overview
• USCIS Form I-485
• INA §245: Adjustment of Status
• INA §212: Grounds of Inadmissibility

---

Key Case Law on Immigration Discretion

• Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970)
• Matter of Marin, 16 I&N Dec. 581 (BIA 1978)
• Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996)
• Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022)

---

Herman Legal Group Resources on PM-602-0199 and I-485 Discretion

• Did USCIS Walk Back the I-485 Memo? Latest Updates
• Will USCIS Deny My I-485 Under the New 2026 Memo?
• Can USCIS Force Consular Processing? Risks Under the New Memo
• What Happens If Your Adjustment of Status Is Denied?
• USCIS I-485: What Immigrants Must Prove Under the New Memo
• USCIS AI I-485 2026: Transforming Immigration Applications
• H-1B I-485 2026: Should You Still File Adjustment of Status?
• Should H-1B Holders Avoid Filing I-485 Right Now?

---

Herman Legal Group Green Card and Adjustment Resources

• Employment-Based Immigration
• Marriage Green Card 2026 Mega-Guide
• Adjusting Status Through Marriage from F-1, H-1B, or B-2
• Who Can File for a Marriage-Based Green Card?
• Top Firms for Marriage Green Card Lawyer Services

---

Herman Legal Group RFE, NOID, and Denial Resources

• How Can I Overcome an RFE or NOID?
• What to Do If You Have Received an RFE or NOID
• What If I Get an RFE or NOID With My I-485?
• How to Win a Spousal I-130 or I-751 After RFE or NOID

---

Herman Legal Group Waiver and Consular Processing Resources

• Immigration Waivers
• How to Win Your I-601 or I-601A Waiver Application
• The I-601A Provisional Waiver of Unlawful Presence
• Can You Travel Outside the U.S. While an I-601A Waiver Is Pending or Approved?

---

Herman Legal Group Removal Defense and Litigation Resources

• Legal Assistance for Deportation Defense
• Deportation Defense Lawyers in Cleveland, Ohio
• Cleveland Immigration Court 2026 Survival Guide
• Immigration Bond in Ohio: What to Do in the First 72 Hours After an ICE Arrest
• I’m in Removal Proceedings: Can I Stay in the U.S.?
• Green Card Holder Facing Deportation in Cleveland, Ohio

---

Herman Legal Group Security Vetting, Delays, and Policy Resources

• Rhode Island Court Strikes Down USCIS Benefits Freeze
• Frozen Files: USCIS PM-602-0192 Freeze Halts Cases
• USCIS Vetting Center, High-Risk Countries, and Social Media Screening
• USCIS Security Vetting Rules
• The 18-Month USCIS Work Permit Explained

---

Herman Legal Group Firm and Consultation Resources

• Meet Immigration Lawyer Richard Herman
• About Herman Legal Group
• Book a Consultation with Herman Legal Group
• Cleveland Immigration Lawyers

 

Key Takeaway

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:

• thoughtful preparation;
• credible documentation;
• positive equities;
• family hardship evidence;
• economic contribution evidence;
• rehabilitation evidence;
• community involvement;
• persuasive legal advocacy.

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.

 

 

 

Need Help Building a Winning Immigration Equities Package?

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:

• applying for a marriage-based green card;
• adjusting through employment;
• pursuing a green card as an F-1 student;
• responding to an RFE or NOID;
• overcoming prior immigration violations;
• addressing criminal history concerns;
• seeking a waiver;
• navigating heightened scrutiny under PM-602-0199;

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:

• USCIS policy developments;
• adjustment of status adjudication trends;
• federal court decisions;
• discretionary review standards;
• evolving interpretations of PM-602-0199.

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.

 

About Richard T. Herman, Esq.

Richard T. Herman is a nationally recognized immigration attorney, author, speaker, policy advocate, and founder of Herman Legal Group, the Law Firm for Immigrants. For more than 30 years, he has represented immigrants, families, entrepreneurs, investors, multinational employers, physicians, engineers, students, artists, athletes, and professionals navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law.

Richard is widely recognized for his work in immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, federal court litigation, and immigration policy. He has built a national reputation for helping clients solve complex immigration challenges while serving as a leading voice on how immigration strengthens America’s economy, workforce, innovation ecosystem, and communities.

National Recognition & Professional Credentials

Richard has earned recognition from some of the legal profession’s most respected organizations, including:

• Super Lawyers
• Best Lawyers in America
• AV-Rated by Martindale-Hubbell
• Avvo 10.0 Superb Rating
• Lead Counsel Rated Attorney

Learn more:

• Attorney Bio: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/attorneys/richard-herman/
• Super Lawyers Profile: https://profiles.superlawyers.com/ohio/cleveland/lawyer/richard-t-herman/065eda8c-5fc8-4626-9c52-0910c8cd7bdd.html
• Super Lawyers Feature, A Lawyer Without Borders: https://digital.superlawyers.com/superlawyers/ohslrs06/MobilePagedReplica.action?pm=2&folio=20
• Avvo Profile: https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/44113-oh-richard-herman-602006.html

Featured National Media

Richard’s immigration law analysis and economic development work have been featured by The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, WBUR, CBS News, Forbes, Business Insider, USA Today, and numerous other national and international media organizations.

Selected appearances include:

• The New York Times (2025) – As Trump Squeezes the Immigrant Work Force, Employers Seek Relief
  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/09/us/international-students-visa-social-media.html
• The Washington Post (2025) – International Students Scrub Social Media
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/07/09/international-students-visas-trump-social-media-online-vetting/
• NPR (2026) – Interview discussing Trump Administration green card policy changes
  https://www.npr.org/2026/05/26/nx-s1-5835290/immigration-lawyers-report-chaos-over-trumps-new-green-card-rules
• WBUR / Here & Now (2025) – National interview regarding immigration policy and international students
  https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2025/07/14/immigration-international-students
• CBS News (2025) – Analysis of the proposed Gold Card immigration initiative
  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gold-card-5-million-website/
• Business Insider (2025) – Immigration analysis regarding employment-based immigration and green card sponsorships
  https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-reopens-green-card-applications-for-foreign-workers-2025-1
• Forbes – Featured in The Immigrant Connection discussing immigrant entrepreneurship and economic growth
  https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0620/entrepreneurs-immigration-immigrant-connection.html

Author of Immigrant, Inc.

Richard is co-author of the acclaimed book:

Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy (and How They Will Save the American Worker)

The book helped shape national discussions about immigrant entrepreneurship, innovation, workforce development, economic growth, and urban revitalization. Its themes have been cited in academic scholarship, economic development research, public policy discussions, and U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs.

Learn more:

• Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Immigrant-Inc-Entrepreneurs-Driving-American/dp/0470455713
• HLG Book Page: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-on-immigrants/
• Book Promo Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9APKoGSmok

Academic, Policy & Legal Recognition

Richard’s work has been cited and discussed in academic journals, economic development research, public policy publications, and U.S. Supreme Court filings.

Selected references:

• Economic Development Quarterly Review of Immigrant, Inc.:
  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0891242410377643
• U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief:
  https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/US-v-TX-amicus-faith-2016-03-08.pdf
• U.S. Supreme Court Business Leaders Amicus Brief:
  https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/303227926-BRIEF-OF-AMICI-CURIAE-MEMBERS-OF-THE-BUSINESS-COMMUNITY-IN-SUPPORT-OF-PETITIONERS.pdf

Civic Leadership, Nonprofit Service & Economic Development

Richard is widely regarded as a pioneer of immigration-based economic development in America’s Rust Belt. His work has focused on helping communities attract talent, support entrepreneurs, revitalize neighborhoods, strengthen local economies, and create American jobs.

Throughout his career, Richard has served in leadership, advisory, and board roles for organizations dedicated to immigrant integration, economic development, access to justice, entrepreneurship, international engagement, and civic advancement.

His leadership includes:

• Co-founder of Global Cleveland
• Founding advisor to Global Detroit
• Co-founder of TiE Ohio
• Former Civil Rights Director of LULAC Ohio
• Former Trustee of the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland
• Former Trustee of the Cuyahoga County Bar Association
• Board and advisory involvement with nonprofit, economic development, and international affairs organizations throughout Ohio and the Midwest

Learn more:

• Global Cleveland:
  https://case.edu/ech/articles/g/global-cleveland
• Global Detroit:
  https://globaldetroitmi.org/
• Legal Aid Society of Cleveland:
  https://www.lasclev.org/
• Cleveland Council on World Affairs:
  https://www.ccwa.org/

Speaker, Educator & Thought Leader

Richard has delivered keynote presentations, university lectures, economic development forums, chamber of commerce programs, and policy discussions throughout the United States.

Most notably, Richard was selected by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE) to speak at chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and business forums nationwide regarding the economic benefits of immigration. Through these engagements, he helped educate civic and business leaders on how welcoming immigrants can strengthen local economies, create American jobs, attract investment, address workforce shortages, and improve regional competitiveness.

Selected speaking resources:

• Akron Roundtable:
  https://www.akronroundtable.org/speakers/richard-t-herman/1969/
• Greater Oklahoma City Chamber:
  https://www.okcchamber.com/news/2015/03/30/okc-friday/immigration-reform-could-help-fill-job-openings/
• Global Cleveland:
  https://case.edu/ech/articles/g/global-cleveland

Publications & Commentary

Richard has written extensively on immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, workforce strategy, public policy, and global competitiveness.

Selected publications:

• Governing Author Page:
  https://www.governing.com/authors/Richard-T-Herman.html
• HuffPost Author Page:
  https://www.huffpost.com/author/richard-herman
• Time to Think Like an Immigrant:
  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/time-to-think-like-an-immigrant_b_711902
• If Immigration Is a Game, Let’s Play to Win:
  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/if-immigration-is-a-game_b_1843639

Connect With Richard Herman

• Attorney Bio:
  https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/attorneys/richard-herman/
• Media Resource Center:
  https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/looking-for-a-media-interview-expert-on-immigration/
• Immigration Articles:
  https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/immigration-articles/
• LinkedIn:
  https://www.linkedin.com/in/richardhermanimmigrationlaw/
• X / Twitter:
  https://x.com/immigrantinc
• YouTube:
  https://www.youtube.com/@hermanlegalgroupthelawfirm8344/featured

Need Immigration Help?

Schedule a consultation with Richard Herman or another Herman Legal Group attorney:

https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/

Or call:

1-800-808-4013

Herman Legal Group serves clients nationwide and around the world in family immigration, employment immigration, investor visas, citizenship and naturalization, removal defense, federal court litigation, waivers, asylum, humanitarian relief, and complex immigration matters.

 

 

Has Immigration Pendulum Started to Swing Back?

What 130 Years of American History Tell Us About Court Victories, Public Opinion Shifts, Mass Enforcement, and the Future of U.S. Immigration Policy

Quick Answer

Maybe.

After more than a year of increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement, federal courts, public opinion surveys, business leaders, universities, faith organizations, and immigrant communities are beginning to push back against some of the Administration’s most ambitious immigration initiatives.

Within just a few days in June 2026:

• A federal judge struck down the Administration’s $100,000 H-1B visa filing fee, concluding that the government lacked authority to impose what amounted to an unauthorized tax without congressional approval. See Reuters coverage of the ruling.
• A federal judge in Rhode Island invalidated USCIS policies that had frozen or delayed immigration benefits for nationals of dozens of designated countries, affecting green cards, work permits, asylum applications, and naturalization cases. See Reuters coverage of the Rhode Island decision.
• Federal courts across the country continued to scrutinize detention practices, bond hearing procedures, and executive immigration authority through an expanding wave of habeas corpus litigation.
• New polling suggested growing public discomfort with the scale and methods of immigration enforcement. According to a May 2026 survey, a majority of Americans now believe the Administration is doing “too much” regarding deportations. See Pew Research Center’s findings.

The immigration pendulum refers to the historical tendency of immigration policy to swing between openness and restrictionism.

The question facing immigrants, employers, policymakers, and immigration lawyers is no longer simply whether immigration policy has become more restrictive.

The more important question may be:

Has the immigration pendulum started to swing back?

History suggests that possibility deserves serious consideration.

Why This Article Matters

Immigration debates often focus on the latest executive order, court decision, enforcement action, or political controversy.

But immigration history is much bigger than any single administration.

Over the past 130 years, American immigration policy has repeatedly moved through cycles:

• restriction followed by expansion,
• exclusion followed by inclusion,
• fear followed by acceptance,
• enforcement followed by reform.

The details change.

The pattern remains remarkably consistent.

The Chinese Exclusion era eventually gave way to repeal.

The National Origins Quota System of 1924 ultimately yielded to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

California’s Proposition 187 helped trigger one of the most significant political realignments in modern American history.

Post-9/11 security measures eventually generated renewed debates about civil liberties, due process, and immigration reform.

Again and again, the immigration pendulum has swung.

The question confronting the United States today is whether another swing has already begun.

The Central Question of 2026: Did the Administration Overplay Its Hand?

Immigration was arguably the Administration’s strongest political issue entering 2025.

Many Americans were concerned about border security.

Many favored stronger enforcement.

Many supported removing violent criminals, gang members, traffickers, and recent unlawful entrants.

The Administration responded with one of the most aggressive immigration enforcement agendas in modern American history.

Among other initiatives, the government:

• expanded detention operations,
• increased interior enforcement,
• broadened travel restrictions,
• implemented nationality-based immigration policies,
• heightened scrutiny of legal immigration benefits,
• attempted to impose a $100,000 H-1B filing fee,
• adopted new restrictions affecting adjustment of status,
• expanded vetting and discretionary review.

Initially, many of these efforts enjoyed significant public support.

But immigration politics has always been more complicated than campaign slogans.

Americans often support immigration enforcement in principle.

Yet public opinion frequently becomes more nuanced when enforcement appears to affect:

• long-term residents,
• students,
• healthcare workers,
• mixed-status families,
• asylum seekers,
• lawful visa holders,
• children,
• individuals without significant criminal histories.

That distinction has repeatedly shaped immigration policy throughout American history.

It may be shaping 2026 as well.

Recent polling suggests Americans continue supporting border security while simultaneously expressing increasing concern about the scope and implementation of immigration enforcement.

That shift matters.

Because immigration policy rarely changes when only activists object.

Immigration policy changes when courts, businesses, universities, faith organizations, local communities, and ordinary voters begin asking the same question:

Has enforcement gone too far?

Why 2026 Feels Different

Every administration faces immigration litigation.

Every administration faces political opposition.

What makes 2026 different is the breadth of the reaction.

Pushback is emerging simultaneously from multiple institutions.

That is historically significant.

Federal Courts Are Becoming Increasingly Active

The judiciary has become one of the most important battlegrounds in immigration policy.

Recent federal court decisions have challenged:

• detention practices,
• nationality-based restrictions,
• visa policies,
• asylum limitations,
• USCIS adjudication freezes,
• agency authority under the Administrative Procedure Act,
• due process protections.

The Rhode Island decision invalidating USCIS benefit freezes is particularly significant because it rejected efforts to suspend adjudications affecting nationals of designated countries. See Reuters coverage of the decision.

Likewise, the federal court ruling striking down the $100,000 H-1B filing fee signals growing judicial scrutiny of executive efforts to reshape immigration policy through administrative action rather than legislation. See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.

The significance of these decisions extends beyond their immediate impact.

Historically, courts often serve as the first institutional check when executive authority expands rapidly.

Businesses Are Pushing Back

Many of America’s most important economic sectors depend heavily upon immigrant labor and talent.

This includes:

• hospitals,
• universities,
• technology companies,
• research institutions,
• engineering firms,
• manufacturers,
• agricultural employers.

When immigration restrictions begin affecting economic competitiveness, business opposition often follows.

The litigation challenging the $100,000 H-1B filing fee demonstrated the extent to which employers, educational institutions, and state governments viewed the policy as economically harmful.

Historically, business opposition has often played a major role in immigration policy reversals.

Universities and Healthcare Systems Are Increasingly Concerned

American universities remain among the world’s most important destinations for international students, physicians, engineers, scientists, and researchers.

Likewise, healthcare systems throughout the United States depend heavily upon immigrant physicians, nurses, researchers, and healthcare professionals.

Restrictions affecting recruitment, mobility, visa processing, and permanent residence pathways inevitably generate resistance from institutions that depend upon global talent.

That pattern is becoming increasingly visible.

Faith Communities and Humanitarian Organizations Are Mobilizing

Throughout American history, religious organizations have often played a significant role in immigration debates.

Churches.

Synagogues.

Mosques.

Refugee organizations.

Humanitarian nonprofits.

Legal service providers.

Many of these organizations have become increasingly vocal regarding detention practices, family separation concerns, refugee restrictions, and humanitarian protections.

Historically, when faith communities become deeply engaged in immigration issues, broader public conversations often follow.

Local Communities Are Experiencing the Impact Directly

Immigration enforcement is no longer an abstract policy debate.

Communities throughout the country increasingly experience immigration enforcement firsthand.

Families.

Employers.

Schools.

Hospitals.

Neighborhoods.

Local governments.

The result is a much more visible and personal immigration debate than existed during earlier enforcement eras.

And that visibility may be the most important difference between 2026 and previous immigration crackdowns.

The Visibility Problem: Immigration Enforcement in the Smartphone Era

One of the most important differences between today’s immigration debate and earlier periods of restriction is technology.

Historically, immigration enforcement largely occurred out of public view.

Most Americans rarely witnessed:

• immigration arrests,
• detention facilities,
• removal proceedings,
• asylum hearings,
• workplace operations,
• family separations.

Today, that has changed dramatically.

• Every arrest can become a video.
• Every detention incident can become a social media story.
• Every enforcement controversy can become national news.
• Every government mistake can spread across the country within hours.

Whether one supports or opposes current immigration policies, immigration enforcement is now more visible than at any previous point in American history.

That visibility affects public opinion.

Americans may support enforcement in the abstract.

They often react differently when confronted with individual stories involving:

• children,
• students,
• military families,
• healthcare workers,
• longtime residents,
• asylum seekers,
• lawful permanent residents.

Political scientists have observed this pattern repeatedly throughout American history.

The more personal immigration stories become, the more complicated immigration politics tends to become.

The Question That May Define the Next Decade

No one knows whether 2026 will ultimately represent a turning point.

No one knows whether recent court victories will survive appeal.

No one knows whether current polling trends will continue.

But history teaches an important lesson.

Periods of aggressive immigration restriction frequently generate counterreactions.

• Sometimes those counterreactions are political.
• Sometimes they are legal.
• Sometimes they are economic.
• Sometimes they are cultural.

Often they are all four.

The question facing America today is not whether immigration enforcement will continue.

It almost certainly will.

The question is whether the country is beginning to move from an era dominated by enforcement toward an era increasingly focused on limits, accountability, due process, and balance.

The answer may shape American immigration policy for years to come.

130 Years of Immigration Pendulum Swings

Why Today’s Immigration Battles Are Part of a Much Larger American Story

If immigration policy appears unusually contentious in 2026, it is worth remembering that the United States has experienced similar moments before.

In fact, the history of American immigration is not a straight line.

It is a political pendulum.

For more than 130 years, immigration policy has repeatedly swung between two competing impulses:

• Restriction and openness.
• Fear and opportunity.
• Exclusion and inclusion.

Economic anxiety, national security concerns, demographic change, cultural tensions, labor demands, and political movements have repeatedly pushed the country in one direction before economic realities, constitutional principles, and changing public attitudes eventually pulled it back; this idea helps explain recurring shifts in both policy and public opinion.

Understanding these historical cycles provides important context for today’s debates over detention, deportation, travel bans, visa restrictions, asylum policy, adjustment of status, and executive authority.

The question is not whether America has experienced immigration backlashes before.

It has.

The question is whether 2026 represents the beginning of another historical correction.

First Swing: Chinese Exclusion and America’s First National Immigration Backlash

The first major modern immigration backlash emerged during the late nineteenth century.

Chinese immigrants had played a critical role in building railroads, mining operations, agriculture, and infrastructure throughout the American West.

Yet as economic conditions deteriorated during the 1870s and 1880s, political leaders increasingly blamed immigrants for labor competition and declining wages.

The result was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the first major federal law restricting immigration based primarily on nationality and ethnicity.

The law prohibited most Chinese labor immigration and established a framework that would influence American immigration policy for decades.

Supporters argued that exclusion was necessary to protect American workers.

Critics argued that it institutionalized racial discrimination.

At the time, exclusion enjoyed broad political support. High tariffs and immigration restrictions became common after 1828.

Few imagined it would eventually be viewed as one of the most notorious immigration laws in American history.

Yet over time public attitudes changed.

The law was eventually repealed in 1943 during World War II.

What had once been considered necessary became viewed as inconsistent with American values.

See the National Archives’ historical overview of the Chinese Exclusion Act: Chinese Exclusion Act Records.

The first lesson of immigration history is simple:

Policies that seem politically untouchable today may appear very differently decades later.

Second Swing: The Immigration Act of 1924 and the National Origins Quota System

The next major restrictionist wave arrived after World War I.

Economic instability.

Political unrest.

Fear of communism.

Concerns regarding cultural change.

These forces combined to produce one of the most restrictive immigration systems in American history.

Congress enacted the Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act.

The law established the National Origins Quota System.

Immigration from Northern and Western Europe was favored.

Immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe was sharply restricted.

Asian immigration remained largely prohibited.

Supporters argued that the legislation protected American identity and social cohesion.

Opponents argued that it codified ethnic, religious, and racial discrimination.

At the time, the law reflected mainstream political opinion.

Yet by the 1950s and 1960s, many Americans viewed the quota system very differently.

Civil rights movements, changing demographics, and Cold War concerns increasingly undermined support for immigration policies based on national origin.

The very system that had dominated American immigration policy for forty years ultimately became politically unsustainable.

Historical materials regarding the 1924 law are available through the Office of the Historian: Immigration Act of 1924.

Once again, the pendulum moved.

Third Swing: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

If 1924 represented the high-water mark of immigration restriction, 1965 represented one of the most significant expansions in modern immigration history.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished the National Origins Quota System and fundamentally transformed the American immigration system.

• Family reunification became a central principle.
• Employment-based immigration expanded.
• Nationality-based discrimination was substantially reduced.
• The legislation helped create the modern immigration system that exists today.

See the Office of the Historian’s discussion of the law: Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The consequences were profound.

Over the following decades, immigration from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East increased dramatically.

American cities changed.

Universities expanded.

Industries gained access to global talent.

Entrepreneurship flourished.

Yet success produced new political tensions.

As immigration increased, concerns regarding border security, labor markets, assimilation, and government services became increasingly prominent.

The seeds of the next backlash had already been planted.

The U.S. economy was most open after World War II until about 2010.

Fourth Swing: IRCA and the Search for Compromise

By the 1980s, unauthorized immigration had become a major political issue.

Congress responded with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

IRCA represented an attempt to balance competing priorities.

The law legalized millions of undocumented immigrants already living in the United States.

At the same time, it imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired unauthorized workers.

Congress hoped legalization and enforcement would work together.

For a brief period, many believed the immigration debate had been resolved.

It had not.

Unauthorized migration continued.

Enforcement expanded.

Political disagreements intensified.

The lesson was important.

Immigration policy rarely produces permanent victories.

The competing interests underlying immigration debates inevitably reemerge.

Fifth Swing: California’s Proposition 187 and an Unexpected Political Realignment

Perhaps the most important historical comparison to today’s politics is California’s Proposition 187.

In the early 1990s, immigration became one of California’s most divisive political issues.

Governor Pete Wilson embraced aggressive immigration enforcement as a central political strategy, reflecting how some elected officials use immigration crackdowns during periods of backlash.

Proposition 187 sought to deny many public services and benefits to undocumented immigrants.

Initially, the measure appeared politically successful.

Voters approved it.

Supporters celebrated it.

Opponents challenged it.

Much of the initiative was later blocked in federal court.

See the Ninth Circuit’s discussion of the litigation: League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson.

But the most important consequence may have been political rather than legal.

1. Many scholars believe Proposition 187 accelerated long-term political changes throughout California.
2. Large immigrant communities became more politically engaged.
3. Naturalization rates increased.
4. Voter participation expanded.
5. Political coalitions shifted.

What appeared to be a short-term political victory ultimately produced long-term consequences that many supporters never anticipated.

That historical lesson remains highly relevant today.

Sixth Swing: September 11 and the Security Era

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 transformed immigration policy.

National security became the dominant immigration concern.

• Congress created the Department of Homeland Security.
• Screening procedures expanded.
• Visa processing became more intensive.
• Background investigations increased.
• Enforcement authority grew dramatically.
• Many Americans supported these changes.

The attacks had fundamentally altered the political environment.

Yet even during this period, concerns gradually emerged regarding:

• due process,
• civil liberties,
• indefinite detention,
• surveillance,
• executive authority,
• profiling.

The post-9/11 era demonstrates another recurring feature of immigration history.

Periods of heightened security concerns often produce expanded government authority.

Over time, courts, advocacy groups, and public opinion frequently begin examining the limits of that authority.

Seventh Swing: Arizona SB 1070 and the Supreme Court

In 2010, Arizona enacted SB 1070, one of the most controversial immigration laws in modern American history.

Supporters argued that federal authorities had failed to secure the border.

Opponents argued that the law encouraged racial profiling and undermined federal authority.

The litigation eventually reached the Supreme Court.

In Arizona v. United States, the Court invalidated several major provisions while preserving others.

See the Supreme Court opinion:Arizona v. United States.

The case reinforced a recurring principle of immigration law:

While states may play important roles, immigration remains primarily a federal responsibility.

More importantly, SB 1070 demonstrated how aggressive enforcement measures often generate significant legal and political resistance.

Eighth Swing: Family Separation and the Limits of Public Support

The family separation controversy of 2018 may offer one of the clearest examples of how immigration politics can change rapidly.

Many Americans supported stronger border enforcement.

Many supported greater deterrence.

Yet public reaction shifted dramatically when images emerged showing children separated from parents.

Litigation accelerated.

Media attention intensified.

Political pressure mounted.

Eventually, policy changes followed.

The lesson was not that Americans opposed immigration enforcement.

The lesson was that many Americans viewed certain enforcement methods as unacceptable.

That distinction remains important today.

Ninth Swing: The Great Enforcement Expansion of 2025-2026

The current period may eventually become known as one of the most consequential immigration enforcement eras in modern American history.

Recent years have seen:

• expanded detention,
• increased interior enforcement,
• travel restrictions,
• nationality-based immigration policies,
• heightened scrutiny of immigration benefits,
• expanded vetting,
• restrictions affecting adjustment of status,
• attempts to increase barriers to legal immigration.

For example, USCIS recently adopted PM-602-0199, which significantly altered the agency’s approach to adjustment-of-status adjudications.

Readers may review the memorandum here: USCIS PM-602-0199.

Supporters argue these policies restore integrity to the immigration system.

Critics argue they exceed statutory authority, create unnecessary hardship, and undermine longstanding immigration principles. The U.S. economy was most open after World War II until about 2010.

Negative net migration was recorded in the U.S. in 2025, influenced by restrictive immigration policies.

The legal battles are only beginning.

Why History Matters in 2026

The purpose of studying these earlier periods is not to suggest that history repeats itself perfectly.

It does not.

Every era is different.

Every immigration debate is unique.

Yet certain patterns emerge repeatedly.

Periods of restriction often generate:

• litigation,
• political mobilization,
• business opposition,
• academic criticism,
• humanitarian advocacy,
• judicial scrutiny.

Over time, those forces sometimes produce significant policy corrections.

The question facing the country today is whether those forces are beginning to converge once again.

The answer may determine the future of American immigration law.

Is the Pendulum Already Moving?

The Evidence That 2026 May Be a Turning Point in American Immigration Policy

History alone cannot tell us whether the immigration pendulum is swinging back.

History provides context.

What matters now is the evidence.

Are the same warning signs that preceded previous immigration policy reversals beginning to appear again?

No single court decision can answer that question.

No single poll can answer it.

No single protest, lawsuit, election, or executive order can answer it.

But when multiple indicators begin moving in the same direction at the same time, it is worth paying attention.

And that is precisely what appears to be happening in 2026.

Signal #1: Federal Courts Are Becoming Increasingly Skeptical of Executive Immigration Authority

Historically, one of the earliest signs of an immigration pendulum shift is judicial intervention.

During periods of rapid immigration expansion, courts often defer to executive agencies.

During periods of aggressive restriction, courts frequently begin examining whether those agencies have exceeded their legal authority.

That process appears to be accelerating.

The question is no longer whether courts will review these policies.

The question is whether courts will continue invalidating them.

Recent decisions suggest that possibility is real.

The Rhode Island Decision: A Major Judicial Warning Shot

On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued one of the most significant immigration rulings of the year.

The court invalidated USCIS policies that had effectively frozen or delayed immigration benefits for nationals of dozens of designated countries.

The affected benefits reportedly included:

• adjustment of status,
• employment authorization,
• asylum-related benefits,
• naturalization,
• refugee processing,
• other immigration benefits.

See Reuters coverage of the Rhode Island ruling.

The importance of the decision extends far beyond the plaintiffs.

The court’s ruling reinforces a fundamental principle of administrative law:

Federal agencies cannot simply stop adjudicating applications because they disagree with the applicants’ nationality.

USCIS may deny applications.

USCIS may investigate applications.

USCIS may issue Requests for Evidence.

USCIS may conduct security reviews.

But courts have repeatedly emphasized that agencies must operate within the limits established by Congress and the Administrative Procedure Act.

That principle could have implications far beyond the specific policies challenged in Rhode Island.

For a detailed analysis of the ruling, see HLG’s article: Rhode Island Court Strikes Down USCIS Benefits Freeze: What It Means for Your Green Card, Work Permit, Citizenship and Asylum Case.

The $100,000 H-1B Filing Fee Case

Just days later, another federal court delivered a second major setback to the Administration.

On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin invalidated the Administration’s controversial $100,000 H-1B filing fee.

See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.

The Administration argued that the fee would protect American workers and discourage outsourcing.

Opponents argued that the fee effectively functioned as an unauthorized tax imposed without congressional authorization.

The court agreed.

The significance of the decision goes beyond H-1B visas.

The ruling reflects a broader judicial concern:

Can the executive branch fundamentally reshape immigration policy without Congress?

That question lies at the heart of many of the most important immigration lawsuits currently pending nationwide.

For employers, universities, hospitals, and foreign professionals, the decision represented a major victory.

For courts, it represented another indication that judges are increasingly willing to scrutinize aggressive immigration initiatives.

For a detailed analysis of the ruling, see HLG’s article: Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s 100000 H 1B Fee: Is the H-1B Crackdown Over?

Signal #2: Habeas Corpus Litigation Is Exploding Nationwide

Perhaps the most underreported immigration story of 2026 is the dramatic growth of immigration habeas corpus litigation.

For decades, many immigration detention cases remained largely hidden from public attention.

Today, that is changing.

Across the country, federal courts are increasingly hearing challenges involving:

• prolonged detention,
• bond hearing rights,
• due process violations,
• unlawful custody,
• delays in removal,
• detention conditions,
• statutory interpretation.

While individual outcomes vary, the volume of litigation itself is significant.

Historically, surging habeas litigation often reflects growing concern regarding executive detention authority.

Federal judges are being asked to answer increasingly fundamental questions:

• How long can someone be detained?
• When is a bond hearing required?
• What due process protections apply?
• What burden of proof must the government satisfy?
• When does detention become constitutionally problematic?

These questions increasingly place courts at the center of immigration policy.

And history suggests that when federal courts become deeply involved in detention issues, broader legal changes often follow.

Signal #3: Public Opinion May Be Beginning to Shift

Perhaps the most politically significant development involves public opinion.

For much of 2024 and early 2025, immigration was one of the Administration’s strongest political issues.

Many Americans wanted stronger border security.

Many supported tougher enforcement.

Many favored removing violent criminals and gang members.

But public opinion is rarely static.

Recent polling suggests Americans may be drawing distinctions between:

• border security and mass enforcement,
• criminal removals and community-wide operations,
• public safety and broad detention policies,
• illegal immigration and legal immigration.

ICE killing American protestors in Minneapolis has accelerated American’s disapproval of Trump’s aggressive immigration enforecement.

Those distinctions matter.

A May 2026 Pew Research Center survey found that 52% of Americans believed the Administration was doing too much regarding deportations.

Only 31% believed the government was doing the right amount.

See Pew Research’s deportation survey.

A Harvard-Harris survey similarly found growing concern regarding immigration enforcement practices.

See Harvard-Harris Poll.

Meanwhile, Gallup reported record-high percentages of Americans viewing immigration as beneficial to the country.

See Gallup’s immigration findings.

Record Gallup polling shows 79% of U.S. adults believe immigration is beneficial. The majority of Americans favor pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Importantly, these surveys do not suggest Americans oppose immigration enforcement.

Most do not.

What they suggest is something more nuanced:

Americans increasingly appear to support enforcement directed at genuine public safety threats while expressing greater skepticism toward broad enforcement actions affecting families, students, workers, and longtime residents.

That distinction may prove enormously important politically.

Signal #4: Businesses Are Starting to Push Back

Historically, major immigration policy shifts rarely occur without business involvement.

Employers care about labor supply.

Universities care about students and researchers.

Hospitals care about physicians and nurses.

Technology companies care about engineers and scientists.

When immigration policies begin affecting economic competitiveness, political dynamics often change.

The challenge to the $100,000 H-1B fee demonstrated the breadth of institutional opposition.

States argued that the policy harmed:

• public universities,
• hospitals,
• schools,
• research institutions,
• government employers.

This mirrors previous periods in American history when business interests became major participants in immigration debates.

Labor shortages have been reported in sectors reliant on immigrant labor due to stricter regulations. High tariffs and immigration restrictions have increased U.S. economic closure. Bipartisan pressure is leading policymakers to explore targeted enforcement exemptions for essential workers.

Economic pressure often becomes one of the most powerful forces driving policy change.

Signal #5: PM-602-0199 May Trigger the Next Litigation Wave

The next major immigration battle may already be underway.

On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199.

See PM-602-0199.

The memorandum fundamentally reorients adjustment-of-status adjudications by emphasizing that adjustment is an “extraordinary” discretionary benefit rather than a routine pathway to permanent residence.

The policy has generated intense debate.

Supporters argue the memorandum restores congressional intent and strengthens discretionary review.

Critics argue the policy exceeds statutory authority and effectively rewrites longstanding adjustment-of-status principles.

For an in-depth discussion, see HLG’s analysis: USCIS PM-602-0199: What the New Adjustment of Status Memo Means for Green Card Applicants.

Whether PM-602-0199 ultimately survives judicial review remains uncertain.

But one thing appears increasingly likely:

The memorandum will generate substantial litigation.

And that litigation may become one of the defining immigration battles of the next several years.

What Courts May Be Signaling

Taken individually, each of these developments could be dismissed as isolated events.

A court ruling.

A lawsuit.

A poll.

A policy dispute.

Viewed together, however, they suggest something larger.

Courts appear increasingly willing to scrutinize executive immigration authority.

Businesses appear increasingly willing to challenge immigration restrictions.

Public opinion appears increasingly nuanced.

Litigation is expanding.

Institutional resistance is growing.

Historically, these are precisely the kinds of indicators that often emerge before significant policy corrections occur.

That does not mean every Administration policy will be struck down.

It does not mean enforcement will end.

It does not mean immigration reform is imminent.

But it may mean the legal and political environment is beginning to change.

And history suggests that once those changes begin, they can accelerate surprisingly quickly.

The Bigger Question

The most important question facing immigration lawyers, policymakers, employers, and immigrant families is no longer whether immigration enforcement will continue.

It will.

The more important question is whether Americans are beginning to distinguish between enforcement that promotes public safety and enforcement that appears excessive, indiscriminate, or inconsistent with traditional American values.

That distinction has shaped every major immigration cycle over the past 130 years.

It may shape the next one as well.

What Happens Next?

What History Predicts About the Future of Immigration Policy

If history is any guide, the most important immigration stories of 2026 have not happened yet.

The Rhode Island decision.

The H-1B fee ruling.

The growing wave of habeas corpus litigation.

The debate over PM-602-0199.

The shifting public opinion data.

These developments may prove significant.

But historically, they are not the end of the story.

They are often the beginning.

When immigration pendulums begin moving, the movement tends to unfold over years rather than months, and history suggests the pendulum will swing back even if that outcome is never guaranteed.

The legal battles expand.

Political coalitions shift.

Public opinion evolves.

Courts become increasingly involved.

Economic realities begin exerting pressure.

Eventually, policymakers are forced to respond.

The question is not whether immigration policy will continue changing.

The question is how.

Prediction #1: The Courts Will Become the Primary Immigration Battleground

For much of the twentieth century, Congress was the primary arena for immigration reform.

That is increasingly no longer true.

Congress remains deeply divided.

Comprehensive immigration reform appears unlikely in the near future.

As a result, presidents increasingly rely upon executive authority.

Federal agencies increasingly rely upon administrative guidance.

And federal courts increasingly become the institutions deciding where executive authority ends.

That pattern is already visible.

The most consequential immigration developments of 2026 have emerged not from Congress but from litigation.

The Rhode Island decision.

The H-1B fee ruling.

The expanding detention cases.

The growing Administrative Procedure Act challenges.

The constitutional claims.

The statutory interpretation disputes.

Immigration lawyers should expect significantly more litigation over:

• detention,
• bond hearings,
• travel restrictions,
• visa processing,
• nationality-based policies,
• adjustment of status,
• agency discretion,
• due process.

The judiciary is likely to remain the central battlefield for immigration policy throughout the remainder of the decade.

Prediction #2: PM-602-0199 May Become the Most Important Immigration Lawsuit of the Decade

Few policies have generated as much concern among immigration lawyers as USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199.

See USCIS PM-602-0199.

The memorandum fundamentally alters how USCIS approaches adjustment of status.

Historically, adjustment of status has served as one of the most important pathways to permanent residence.

Family members.

Spouses.

Parents.

Employment-based applicants.

Diversity visa winners.

Many have relied upon adjustment of status to obtain lawful permanent residence without leaving the United States.

PM-602-0199 reemphasizes that adjustment is discretionary and describes it as an extraordinary form of relief.

Supporters view the memorandum as a restoration of congressional intent.

Critics argue that the policy improperly elevates discretion above statutory eligibility.

Those competing interpretations are almost certain to generate litigation.

Several questions are likely to emerge:

• Can USCIS effectively create a presumption against adjustment?
• Can USCIS prioritize consular processing over adjustment?
• How much discretion is too much discretion?
• Does the memorandum conflict with existing statutes or regulations?
• Are there Administrative Procedure Act vulnerabilities?

The answers may ultimately come from federal courts.

And those answers could affect hundreds of thousands of future green card applicants.

For ongoing coverage, see HLG’s adjustment-of-status resources:

• Adjustment of Status Guide
• Marriage Green Card Process
• I-485 Application Resources

Prediction #3: Detention Litigation Will Continue Expanding

One of the most overlooked developments in immigration law is the increasing importance of detention litigation.

Historically, detention cases often remained hidden from public view.

Today, federal courts are confronting increasingly difficult questions involving:

• prolonged detention,
• constitutional protections,
• bond hearing standards,
• mandatory detention statutes,
• procedural fairness,
• removal delays.

These cases are shaping the future of immigration law in ways that many outside the legal profession do not fully appreciate.

History suggests that when detention litigation reaches critical mass, broader legal reforms often follow.

The outcome of these cases may influence:

• detention practices,
• bond procedures,
• ICE policies,
• due process protections,
• federal court review.

For immigration practitioners, detention and habeas corpus litigation may become one of the most important practice areas of the next decade.

Prediction #4: Labor Markets Will Push Back Against Restriction

One of the strongest forces in immigration history is economics.

Political movements come and go.

Court decisions rise and fall.

Economic realities remain.

The United States continues to face long-term demographic challenges:

• declining birth rates,
• aging populations,
• labor shortages,
• healthcare workforce shortages,
• STEM workforce demands.

Many sectors of the economy depend heavily upon immigrant workers.

Healthcare.

Technology.

Agriculture.

Construction.

Hospitality.

Research.

Education.

The conflict between immigration restriction and labor market demand is likely to intensify.

The H-1B litigation may represent an early example of this tension.

See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.

Historically, economic pressures have often moderated restrictive immigration policies.

There is little reason to believe that dynamic has disappeared.

Prediction #5: Universities Will Become Increasingly Influential

American universities have historically played an important role in immigration debates.

They attract:

• international students,
• physicians,
• researchers,
• engineers,
• entrepreneurs,
• future faculty members.

Restrictions affecting international mobility create direct consequences for higher education.

Universities are likely to become increasingly active participants in immigration litigation, policy debates, and legislative advocacy.

This trend is already emerging.

And it is likely to grow.

Prediction #6: Public Opinion Will Continue Becoming More Nuanced

One of the most interesting developments in recent polling is not that Americans support immigration.

Nor is it that Americans support enforcement.

Both can be true simultaneously.

The more important finding is that voters increasingly appear to distinguish between categories of immigrants.

For example:

Many voters support removing violent criminals.

Many voters support border security.

At the same time, many voters express discomfort regarding enforcement actions involving:

• longtime residents,
• spouses of U.S. citizens,
• children,
• students,
• healthcare workers,
• military families.

That distinction matters.

Historically, major immigration shifts often occur when voters begin differentiating between categories rather than viewing immigration as a single issue.

The data increasingly suggest that process may already be underway.

See:

• Pew Research Center
• Gallup Immigration Survey

Could 2026 Become Another Proposition 187 Moment?

One of the most intriguing historical comparisons involves California’s Proposition 187.

At the time, many supporters viewed Proposition 187 as a decisive political victory.

Yet the long-term consequences proved far more complicated.

Large immigrant communities became politically engaged.

Naturalization increased.

Voter participation expanded.

Political coalitions changed.

California’s political landscape shifted for generations.

The episode is often cited in debates over how aggressive immigration politics reshaped electoral coalitions in states that later became reliably Democratic, including many blue states.

History never repeats itself perfectly.

But it often rhymes.

The question is whether today’s enforcement era may eventually generate similar long-term consequences.

If it does, historians may look back on 2025 and 2026 as a turning point rather than a destination.

Richard Herman’s Predictions

After more than three decades practicing immigration law, several trends appear increasingly likely.

1. More Litigation

Federal courts will remain central players in immigration policy.

The volume of immigration litigation will continue increasing.

2. More Challenges to Agency Authority

Administrative Procedure Act litigation will expand.

Courts will increasingly scrutinize whether agencies have exceeded their statutory authority.

3. More Detention Cases

Detention-related litigation will become one of the fastest-growing areas of immigration law.

4. Greater Scrutiny of PM-602-0199

The adjustment-of-status memorandum is unlikely to avoid judicial review.

Federal courts will eventually confront its legality and scope.

5. Continued Public Debate

Immigration will remain one of the defining political issues of the decade.

But the debate will become more nuanced.

The central question will increasingly shift from:

“Should immigration laws be enforced?”

to:

“How should immigration laws be enforced, and where should the limits be?”

That distinction may ultimately define the next chapter of American immigration history.

The Most Important Lesson From History

Every generation believes its immigration battles are unique.

In some ways they are.

Yet history reveals a remarkably consistent pattern.

Periods of restriction often generate counterreactions.

Periods of expansion often generate backlash.

No immigration status quo lasts permanently because the pendulum keeps moving.

The pendulum keeps moving.

The evidence emerging in 2026 does not prove that another major shift has begun.

But it strongly suggests that the forces capable of producing such a shift are increasingly visible.

Courts.

Businesses.

Universities.

Faith communities.

Local governments.

Public opinion.

Demographic realities.

Economic pressures.

All are beginning to influence the conversation.

Whether those forces ultimately reshape immigration policy remains uncertain.

What is certain is that immigration law is entering a period of extraordinary legal, political, and historical significance.

And the next chapter is still being written.

What Immigrants, Employers, Families, Students, and Green Card Applicants Should Do Right Now

Practical Strategies for Navigating an Immigration System in Transition

If sections above focused on history, politics, litigation, and public opinion, this final section focuses on something far more important:

What should you do now?

Whether the immigration pendulum is swinging or not, one reality remains unchanged:

People still need green cards.

Families still need reunification.

Employers still need workers.

Students still need visas.

Detained immigrants still need legal representation.

Businesses still need compliance strategies.

And immigration cases still move forward every day.

The biggest mistake applicants can make during periods of uncertainty is assuming that policy changes, court rulings, or political headlines eliminate the need for planning.

They do not.

In fact, periods of legal uncertainty often make strategic planning even more important.

If You Have a Pending Adjustment of Status Case

Adjustment of status applicants face one of the most uncertain environments in years.

USCIS’s new memorandum, PM-602-0199, places increased emphasis on discretion and describes adjustment as an extraordinary benefit.

See USCIS PM-602-0199.

While litigation may eventually challenge aspects of the policy, applicants should assume the memorandum will influence adjudications for the foreseeable future.

That means applicants should focus on presenting the strongest possible discretionary case.

In addition to establishing statutory eligibility, applicants should consider documenting:

• family ties,
• community involvement,
• educational achievements,
• employment history,
• volunteer work,
• business ownership,
• property ownership,
• tax compliance,
• hardship factors,
• humanitarian considerations,
• military service by family members,
• long-term residence,
• contributions to local communities.

Many applicants have historically assumed that eligibility alone was enough.

The new environment suggests that discretionary evidence may become increasingly important.

Related HLG resources:

• Adjustment of Status Guide
• I-485 Application Guide
• Marriage Green Card Process

If You Are Married to a U.S. Citizen

Spouses of U.S. citizens remain among the strongest categories under immigration law.

However, increased scrutiny means applicants should prepare for more detailed review.

That includes:

• documenting the bona fide nature of the marriage,
• maintaining joint financial records,
• preserving evidence of cohabitation,
• retaining travel records,
• keeping photographs and family documentation,
• maintaining tax records and insurance records.

Applicants should not assume that straightforward cases will remain straightforward.

Even strong cases may face Requests for Evidence or additional scrutiny.

The best strategy is preparation.

If You Are an Employer Sponsoring Foreign Workers

The H-1B fee ruling was an important victory.

See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.

But employers should not assume the legal battles are over.

The Administration may appeal.

New regulations may emerge.

Additional restrictions may be proposed.

Employers should:

• audit immigration compliance programs,
• review public access files,
• verify I-9 compliance,
• prepare for potential FDNS visits,
• evaluate workforce immigration risks,
• identify key employees requiring sponsorship,
• explore alternative visa categories where appropriate.

Businesses that plan ahead are generally better positioned to adapt to changing immigration policies.

Related resources:

• H-1B Visa Guide
• Employment-Based Immigration

If You Are an International Student

International students face a particularly challenging environment.

Students should pay close attention to:

• maintaining status,
• full-time enrollment requirements,
• employment authorization rules,
• travel considerations,
• OPT compliance,
• STEM OPT compliance,
• future sponsorship opportunities.

Students should also keep detailed records.

In periods of increased scrutiny, documentation often becomes critical.

This includes:

• transcripts,
• I-20s,
• employment records,
• tax records,
• academic achievements,
• internship documentation.

The strongest future immigration cases are often built on records created years earlier.

If You Are Facing Removal Proceedings

Perhaps no group is more directly affected by changing immigration policies than individuals in removal proceedings.

For these individuals, legal developments matter immediately.

Recent litigation involving detention, bond hearings, habeas corpus, and executive authority demonstrates that immigration law continues evolving rapidly.

Individuals facing removal should:

• preserve all immigration records,
• maintain copies of prior applications,
• obtain complete FOIA files where appropriate,
• document equities and hardship factors,
• identify potential forms of relief,
• seek qualified legal representation early.

Waiting is rarely a successful strategy.

Preparation almost always is.

Related resources:

• Removal Defense
• Immigration Detention
• Immigration Bond Hearings

If You Are Detained by ICE

One of the most important lessons from recent habeas corpus litigation is that detention cases are highly fact-specific.

Many detainees mistakenly assume that detention automatically means removal.

That is not true.

Depending upon the circumstances, detainees may have:

• bond hearing rights,
• habeas corpus remedies,
• procedural defenses,
• relief from removal,
• constitutional claims,
• statutory arguments.

The legal landscape continues to evolve.

Individuals detained by ICE should seek legal counsel as quickly as possible and ensure family members maintain copies of all relevant records.

If You Are Waiting Abroad for a Visa

Consular processing applicants face unique challenges.

Administrative processing.

Security reviews.

Interview delays.

Travel restrictions.

Policy changes.

All can affect visa issuance.

Applicants should:

• maintain valid contact information,
• monitor case status regularly,
• preserve supporting documentation,
• respond promptly to government requests,
• remain informed regarding policy developments.

Patience remains important.

So does preparation.

What Not to Do

Periods of uncertainty often produce panic.

Panic leads to mistakes.

Among the most common mistakes:

Do Not Ignore Government Notices

Requests for Evidence.

Notices of Intent to Deny.

Interview notices.

Biometrics appointments.

Missing deadlines can have severe consequences.

Do Not Assume Social Media Advice Is Correct

Immigration law is highly fact-specific.

What worked for one person may not apply to another.

Always verify information through reliable sources.

Useful resources include:

• USCIS
• Department of State
• Executive Office for Immigration Review

Do Not Delay Seeking Legal Advice

The earlier legal issues are identified, the more options typically exist.

Many immigration problems become significantly harder to fix after deadlines pass or adverse decisions are issued.

Why Preparation Matters More Than Prediction

One of the central themes of this article is uncertainty.

No one knows whether the immigration pendulum is swinging.

No one knows how courts will ultimately rule.

No one knows what policies future administrations will adopt.

No one knows whether Congress will act.

But uncertainty does not eliminate opportunity.

The immigrants who are most successful during periods of change are often those who prepare before changes occur.

They maintain records.

They preserve evidence.

They comply with requirements.

They understand their options.

They seek advice when needed.

And they position themselves to adapt as circumstances evolve.

That approach remains just as important today as it was during every previous immigration cycle discussed in this article.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Has the immigration pendulum really started to swing back?

No one can answer that with certainty.

What we can say is that several indicators that historically preceded immigration policy shifts are now visible:

• significant federal court rulings,
• growing litigation,
• increased judicial scrutiny of executive authority,
• changing public opinion,
• business opposition,
• university opposition,
• growing public debate regarding immigration enforcement.

Whether these developments become a lasting trend remains to be seen. But they are significant enough that immigration lawyers, policymakers, employers, and immigrant families should pay close attention. See Pew Research’s immigration polling. (Pew Research Center)

---

What happened in the Rhode Island immigration case?

On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island invalidated USCIS policies that had delayed or blocked immigration benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 designated countries.

The court found that the policies unlawfully prevented immigrants from receiving decisions on applications involving asylum, employment authorization, adjustment of status, and naturalization. See Reuters coverage and Rhode Island Current’s coverage with link to the 135-page opinion. (Reuters)

---

What happened to the $100,000 H-1B filing fee?

On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that the Administration’s $100,000 H-1B filing fee was unlawful because it constituted an unauthorized tax that Congress had never approved.

The court concluded that the executive branch lacked authority to impose such a fee unilaterally. See Reuters coverage of the ruling. (Reuters)

---

Is the H-1B issue over?

No.

The government is expected to appeal.

Additional litigation is likely.

Future administrations may attempt different approaches.

Employers and foreign professionals should continue monitoring developments closely. (Reuters)

---

What is PM-602-0199?

PM-602-0199 is USCIS’s May 21, 2026 memorandum concerning adjustment of status adjudications.

The memorandum emphasizes that adjustment of status is a discretionary benefit and describes adjustment as an extraordinary form of relief rather than a routine pathway to permanent residence.

Read the memorandum here:

USCIS PM-602-0199

---

Will PM-602-0199 be challenged in court?

Many immigration lawyers believe litigation is likely.

Potential challenges could involve:

• Administrative Procedure Act claims,
• statutory interpretation issues,
• arbitrary-and-capricious review,
• due process arguments,
• conflicts with prior USCIS practice.

As of publication, significant litigation appears increasingly likely.

---

Can USCIS still deny adjustment of status even if I qualify?

Yes.

Adjustment of status has always been discretionary.

The practical question is how USCIS exercises that discretion.

Applicants should assume that positive equities are becoming increasingly important.

---

What are positive equities?

Examples include:

• long-term residence,
• family ties,
• military service,
• community involvement,
• volunteer work,
• educational achievement,
• business ownership,
• tax compliance,
• humanitarian concerns,
• hardship to U.S. citizens.

---

Are immigration courts becoming more important?

Yes.

Many of the most important immigration issues are increasingly being litigated in:

• immigration courts,
• federal district courts,
• federal courts of appeals,
• the Supreme Court.

Litigation is likely to remain one of the primary drivers of immigration law for years to come.

---

What is habeas corpus in immigration law?

A habeas corpus petition asks a federal court to review whether immigration detention is lawful.

Recent years have seen substantial growth in detention-related habeas litigation involving:

• prolonged detention,
• bond hearings,
• constitutional due process,
• removal delays,
• ICE detention practices.

---

Are Americans becoming more supportive of immigration?

The answer is nuanced.

Recent polling suggests Americans continue supporting border security and removal of violent criminals.

At the same time, many Americans appear increasingly skeptical of broad deportation programs and certain enforcement practices. See Pew Research, Harvard-Harris, and Gallup immigration research. (Pew Research Center)

---

Why do immigration pendulum swings happen?

Historically, immigration policy is influenced by:

• economic conditions,
• labor shortages,
• demographic trends,
• wars,
• national security concerns,
• public opinion,
• judicial decisions,
• political coalitions.

When these forces change, immigration policy often changes as well.

---

Could Congress pass major immigration reform?

Anything is possible, but comprehensive immigration reform appears unlikely in the near term given current political divisions.

Most major developments are likely to come from:

• litigation,
• executive action,
• administrative policy,
• court decisions.

---

What should immigrants do right now?

The safest strategy is preparation:

• maintain lawful status when possible,
• preserve documentation,
• respond promptly to government notices,
• document positive equities,
• consult qualified immigration counsel,
• stay informed about legal developments.

Periods of uncertainty reward preparation.

Immigration Pendulum Resource Center

Current Litigation and Policy Developments

Rhode Island USCIS Benefits Freeze Case

• Reuters:
  US Judge Invalidates Policies Targeting Immigrants from 39 Countries (Reuters)
• Rhode Island Current (includes opinion):
  RI Federal Judge Strikes Down Block on Immigration Benefits (Rhode Island Current)

H-1B $100,000 Filing Fee Litigation

• Reuters:
  Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Fee Is Unlawful (Reuters)
• Reuters background coverage:
  Judge Questions Scope of Executive Authority (Reuters)

USCIS Policy Memorandum

• USCIS:
  PM-602-0199 Adjustment of Status and Discretion

---

Public Opinion Research

Pew Research Center

• About Half of Americans Say Administration Is Doing Too Much on Deportations (Pew Research Center)
• Americans’ Views of Deportations (Pew Research Center)

Harvard-Harris Poll

• January 2026 Immigration Findings (Harvard Harris Poll)

Gallup

• National Immigration Attitudes Survey

---

Historical Sources

Chinese Exclusion Act

• National Archives: Chinese Exclusion Act Records

Immigration Act of 1924

• Office of the Historian: Immigration Act of 1924

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

Arizona v. United States

Final Thoughts: The Pendulum Never Stops Moving

For more than 130 years, American immigration policy has moved through cycles.

Restriction.

Expansion.

Backlash.

Reform.

Enforcement.

Accommodation.

The details change with broader shifts in U.S. foreign policy and economic openness.

The pattern remains remarkably familiar.

Whether 2026 ultimately becomes remembered as a turning point remains uncertain.

But the forces that have driven previous immigration shifts are increasingly visible:

• judicial intervention,
• economic pressure,
• demographic realities,
• public opinion,
• institutional resistance,
• constitutional concerns.

Recent immigration debates also reflect larger arguments about democracy, presidential power, and how far a president can reshape policy without Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans have helped drive these swings, and a second term often intensifies an existing enforcement approach rather than fully resetting it.

History suggests those forces should not be ignored.

For immigrants, employers, families, students, and communities, the lesson is not to panic.

The lesson is to prepare.

Because while no one knows exactly where the immigration pendulum is heading next, one thing is certain:

It has never remained still for long.