Top 5 Things to Know about the New USCIS Adjustment of Status Policy

Newsletter

U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a change today in its approach to adjustment of status processing for individuals who apply for permanent residency from within the United States rather than applying at a U.S. consulate abroad. This policy represents a significant shift in practice for many applicants, although the new policy memo suggests that certain classes of adjustment applicant may be less impacted by the change - specifically, H-1B and L-1 workers and their dependents - due to the unique regulations involving dual intent for these types of visa holders.

Here are the top five things to know and some frequently asked questions about this sudden change in the decades-long protocols at USCIS for adjustment of status processing:

1. Adjustment of status will now only be granted in "extraordinary circumstances."

USCIS has issued a new policy memo directing that foreign nationals seeking to adjust their immigration status to permanent residence (Green Card) must generally do so through consular processing via the Department of State outside the United States, rather than adjusting status while present in the U.S. The new USCIS guidance holds that adjustment of status is to be reserved for extraordinary circumstances utilized as a discretionary grant of administrative grace by the U.S. government. 

However, the USCIS memo suggests the new policy may be less applicable to dual-intent nonimmigrant categories (e.g., H-1B, L-1 and their H-4 and L-2 dependents), where applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with maintaining status as a temporary visa holder. Dual intent means that a person can legally intend to reside temporarily in the United States for purposes of their temporary H-1B or L-1 work visa and simultaneously intend to apply for a future permanent residence status. Dual intent is a well-established concept in business immigration law, with many decades of support in federal law and regulation. The USCIS policy memo does caution that maintaining H-1B or L-1 dual-intent status alone is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. The USCIS officer must still weigh whether or not to exercise discretion in approving the adjustment application, but adjustment applications have always been discretionary.

2. Nonimmigrants are expected to leave the United States and apply for an immigrant visa from abroad.

Under this policy, individuals in the U.S. on temporary visas—such as students, some temporary workers, or tourists—who want a Green Card may be required to return to their home country to apply, rather than using their temporary stay as a stepping stone to permanent residency.  

3. Case-by-case determinations remain.

USCIS officers are directed to consider all relevant factors and information on a case-by-case basis when determining whether an individual's situation qualifies as "extraordinary" enough to warrant in-country adjustment of status. Rather than listing specific "extraordinary circumstances," the memo points officers to existing USCIS policy and directs them to weigh all relevant factors, including:  

  • Immigration law violations 
  • Fraud or misrepresentation 
  • Whether the foreign national’s application for admission or parole violated laws, regulations, and policies 
  • Conduct after admission 
  • Failure to depart as expected
  • Family ties, immigration status and history, and good moral character

The memo emphasizes that a foreign national's failure to comply with the conditions of nonimmigrant admission or parole and failure to depart as expected are "highly relevant" negative factors. 

4. The Memo Does Not Define "Extraordinary Circumstances"

The policy memo does not provide a standalone definition, checklist, or set of illustrative examples of what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" warranting in-country adjustment of status. Instead, the memo frames adjustment of status itself as the "extraordinary" relief, and then directs officers to apply a broad, totality-of-the-circumstances discretionary analysis on a case-by-case basis. 

5. The stated goal is to reduce illegal overstays and reallocate USCIS resources.

According to USCIS, requiring applicants to apply from their home country reduces the risk of denied applicants remaining in the U.S. illegally and frees up agency resources to focus on other priorities, including visas for crime and trafficking victims, naturalization applications, and other cases. The agency characterizes this not as a new rule but as enforcement of long-standing immigration law and court decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

As we await further USCIS guidance and practical experience with the new policy, here are a few common questions and answers.

Is it still possible to file an I-485 adjustment of status application under this new policy?

Yes, new I-485 applications are still permitted to be filed with the agency. The new guidance memo is directed at USCIS officers who adjudicate (approve or deny) I-485 applications. Its operative language instructs officers to treat adjustment as "an extraordinary discretionary relief" and to deny applications absent a showing of unusual equities. However, it does not direct the agency to stop accepting or receiving new I-485 filings.

This is an important distinction: under immigration law, the right to file Form I-485 is governed by statute (INA § 245) and regulation (8 CFR 245), which require that the applicant meet certain eligibility requirements. A mere policy memo cannot override the statutory filing right for applicants who meet these threshold requirements.

How does the policy impact pending I-485 applications?

The memo is framed as a discretionary guidance document—it instructs officers on how to exercise discretion when adjudicating adjustment of status applications. Because the favorable exercise of discretion is assessed at the time of final adjudication, the heightened standard applies to every I-485 application that has not yet been approved, regardless of when it was filed. This is consistent with the general principle in the USCIS Policy Manual that an immigrant visa must be available and all eligibility requirements must be satisfied upon the USCIS officer’s discretion at the time of final adjudication, not merely at the time of filing. 

Notably, the memo does not contain a prospective-only carve-out for already-pending cases. This stands in contrast to other recent USCIS policy changes—such as the August 2025 CSPA age-calculation update—which explicitly applied "prospectively only to applications filed on or after" the effective date. The absence of a grandfathering provision in the new adjustment of status memo strongly suggests it applies to already pending I-485 applications.

I-485 applicants may face additional USCIS scrutiny in the form of increased Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or additional questions at interviews about why adjustment, rather than consular processing, is warranted in their particular case. However, the scrutiny may be much less for dual-intent visa holders.

Are approved Advance Parole travel permits impacted by this new rule?

The memo does not ban advance parole travel or the adjudication of I-131 Advance Parole applications. However, if an I-485 application is denied, any approved Advance Parole travel permit would likely be revoked at the same time.

For individuals not on a dual-intent type of visa, the new policy may raise the stakes for some people. An applicant who travels on advance parole must be prepared to demonstrate "unusual or even outstanding equities" at the time of final adjudication of their I-485, application, which is a higher bar than existed under prior practice, where adjustment was treated as relatively routine for eligible applicants.  

Will this new policy impact my ability to apply for an EAD based on a pending I-485 application or use an already approved EAD based on a pending I-485 application?  

New I-485 applicants are still able to submit a related EAD application. However, it is not clear at this time if the new policy will impact the EAD processing timeline, the ultimate approvability of the EAD application, or the length of the EAD if approved. The new policy does not by itself cause approved EADs to be revoked. However, if a pending I-485 application is denied by USCIS, it is likely that any approved EAD based on the pending I-485 application would be revoked at that time.  

Is this new policy likely to be challenged in the federal courts?

Given the scope of this policy change, the central place that adjustment of status has held in immigration processing for many decades, and the application of the new rule to USCIS’ massive inventory of pending adjustment applications, legal challenges seem almost inevitable. Among other considerations, federal courts may address whether the memo's retroactive application to already-filed cases raises due process or reliance-interest concerns and whether the policy is consistent with prior congressional and judicial action. 

For questions about the new USCIS Adjustment of Status Policy, please contact your Quarles immigration attorney or:

Follow Quarles

Subscribe Media Contact
Back to Main Content

We use cookies to provide you with the best user experience on our website and to analyze statistics related to our website. To understand more about how we use cookies, or for instructions to change your preference and browser settings, please see our Privacy Notice. Please note that if you choose to reject cookies, doing so may impair some of our website's functionality.

scullery23