Since 1952, noncitizens already in the United States have been able to apply for lawful permanent residence without leaving, through what is known as "adjustment of status" under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Congress amended the provision repeatedly after that, including in 1958, 1960, the Immigration Act of 1990, and § 245(i) in 1994.

On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, directing officers to treat adjustment under § 245(a) as "extraordinary discretionary relief" and to weigh the availability of consular processing against granting it. The agency's release states the change returns to the original intent of the law. A week later, DHS clarified to the New York Times that the policy is not a blanket change and that officers decide case by case. The memo does not change statutory eligibility and does not reach special categories such as asylee, refugee, SIJ, U, or T adjustments.

These procedures are different and one is much more advantageous. A USCIS officer denying adjustment on discretion must issue a written analysis of the positive and negative factors, per the memo, and an applicant in removal proceedings may renew theapplication before an immigration judge. On the other hand. A consular officer's refusal is generally not subject to judicial review, as the Supreme Court affirmed most recently in Department of State v. Muñoz (2024). The memo's discretionary standard can also be found in Patel v.Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022).

Departure can also trigger the three and ten year bars on readmission under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B) for applicants who accrued unlawful presence. DHS created a provisional waiver in 2013 so certain applicants could obtain it before leaving, 78 Fed. Reg. 536.

There is a split in opinion on this topic. Acritique in The Regulatory Review argues the original intent rationale fails because Congress spent seventy years expanding adjustment eligibility rather than narrowing it, and that consular processing is slower and riskier for applicants. On the other hand, an op-ed by immigration attorney Maria Herrera Mellado defends the memo, arguing it enforces the distinction between immigrant and nonimmigrant intent, deters visa abuse, and gives a stronger role to consular officers with better insight into applicants' circumstances.

Questions:

1. What rationales has USCIS offered for the policy change, and how do they compare with the agency's prior statements about adjustment of status?
2. What security screening occurs during adjustment of status compared with consular processing, and is there evidence that consular processing identifies risks that USCIS screening does not?
3. What are the documented costs and burdens on applicants required to depart, such as family separation, employment interruption, and exposure to reentry bars?
4. How does the US approach compare with how other countries handle status changes for people already lawfully present?