On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, directing adjudicating officers to treat adjustment of status as a matter of administrative grace rather than a routine procedural outcome. This advisory is intended to inform our clients of the scope and implications of the memorandum, its legal limitations, and the recommended steps to consider in response to this development.

Your pathway to permanent residence is not closed. However, the current regulatory climate demands a higher level of strategic preparation and experienced legal counsel than has previously been required. 

Understanding the Effect and Limitations of the Memorandum

PM-602-0199 instructs USCIS officers to consider an applicant’s decision to pursue adjustment of status from within the United States as a discretionary factor in adjudication. The memorandum further emphasizes that applicants must affirmatively establish favourable equities beyond the mere absence of adverse or disqualifying conduct.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the memorandum does not: 

• Remove or restrict EB-5 concurrent filing rights as established under federal statute; 
• Override dual-intent protections afforded to H-1B, L-1 visa holders; 
• Render any currently pending Form I-485 automatically subject to denial; or 
• Constitutes a change in law. This memorandum is agency guidance only. 

The memorandum relies heavily on precedent developed in the context of removal proceedings — enforcement actions typically involving immigration violations, misrepresentation, or fraud. Those authorities are materially distinguishable from the clean, affirmative, employment-based filings that characterize the vast majority of our clients’ cases.

Further, the 2022 EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act expressly created a statutory right for investors to adjust status from within the United States. An agency policy memorandum lacks the legal authority to override rights conferred by Congress. 

Relative Impact Across Visa Categories on Clients

The following summarizes the relative exposure profile for different visa categories:

Higher Exposure

• B visa holders entered the United States with an expectation of temporary stay and departure. The memorandum’s discretionary framework may therefore apply with heightened scrutiny to applicants in this category.
• F visa holders similarly entered the United States under a temporary non-immigrant intent. As a result, USCIS officers may apply the memorandum’s discretionary analysis more rigorously in such cases.

Categories on Stronger Legal Footing

H-1B, L-1 and EB-5 holders possess meaningful statutory protections that the memorandum explicitly does not override. These applicants are on considerably stronger footing.

Recommended Course of Action 

Considering the foregoing, it is strongly advised that all clients take the following steps without delay: 

If you have a pending Form I-485: Contact your legal counsel immediately to assess your existing equities record and, where necessary, and, where appropriate, develop a proactive evidentiary strategy before the issuance of any Request for Evidence (RFE).

• If you have not yet filed: Do not submit I-485 Adjustment of Status petition without a comprehensive legal strategy in place. A routine filing is insufficient in the current adjudicatory environment. 
• If you have questions: We encourage you to inquire specifically about this memorandum. The pace of change in immigration law is accelerating, and your representation must reflect that reality. 

Our Assessment and Next Steps 

We believe PM-602-0199 is legally vulnerable on multiple grounds and anticipate that formal litigation challenges are forthcoming. Nevertheless, while this guidance remains operative, every pending and prospective case must be built to succeed under the current framework. 

LawQuest is actively monitoring potential litigation and outcomes, regulatory developments, and adjudication patterns, and we will keep you informed.  

Disclaimer: This write-up is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute any legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained herein without seeking professional legal counsel tailored to their specific circumstances. The views expressed are the author’s personal views and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization or institution.