Eligible Is No Longer Enough for Adjustment of Status: What USCIS's New "Administrative Grace" Memo (PM-602-0199) Means for Your Green Card

Update — May 31, 2026. This article was first published the day after USCIS announced Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199. Two developments in the intervening week meaningfully sharpen the picture and have been integrated below. First, on Friday, May 29, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security publicly clarified to The New York Times that the policy is not a blanket change and that individual immigration officers will decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether applicants must leave the U.S. to obtain a green card. A senior White House official separately told the NYT the guidance was "a housekeeping measure rather than a major policy shift." Second, on May 27, 2026, the American Immigration Lawyers Association published a formal practice pointer for its member attorneys (AILA Doc. No. 26052602) — which both (a) identifies, by official USCIS Policy Manual reference, the precise adjustment-of-status provisions the memo reaches and those it does not, and (b) provides a detailed framework of the adverse and positive discretionary factors officers are now being instructed to weigh. Both developments are addressed in their proper places below. The headline framing has softened; the operative memo and its discretionary tightening have not changed.

There is a consequential shift inside a USCIS policy memorandum issued on May 21, 2026 — and a day later, the agency announced it to the public in the loudest terms it could find. The memo itself does not repeal a single line of the immigration statute. It does not eliminate any green card category. It will not appear in the Federal Register, and it does not carry the force of a regulation. And yet, if you are planning to apply for a green card from inside the United States, it may change your odds more than any rule change in recent memory.

The memo is PM-602-0199, and its title tells you almost everything about its tone: "Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process." Stripped of the legalese, here is the message USCIS is sending to its adjudicating officers: adjusting status inside the country is a favor the government may grant, not a prize you collect for meeting the requirements. And officers should start treating it that way.

On May 22, USCIS underscored the point with a newsroom announcement headlined, without hedging: "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Will Grant 'Adjustment of Status' Only in Extraordinary Circumstances." An agency spokesman framed it more bluntly still — that "an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances" — and singled out students, temporary workers, and tourist-visa holders as people whose visit "should not function as the first step in the Green Card process." That public framing is far more categorical than anything in the operative memo, and the distance between the two is one of the most important things for an applicant to understand right now. One week later, DHS itself confirmed the gap — but the operative memo and its discretionary instructions to officers stand. We will come back to both points.

Below is what the memo actually does, what it conspicuously does not do, who should be paying close attention, and what we are advising clients to do about it right now.

First: what this memo is — and what it isn't

It is easy to read a document like this and assume the rules have changed overnight. They haven't. PM-602-0199 is an interpretive policy memorandum — guidance for USCIS officers about how to exercise authority they already had. That authority comes from INA § 245(a), which provides that an eligible applicant's status "may be adjusted by [the Secretary], in his discretion" — discretion that has been on the books all along. The memo even ends with the standard disclaimer that it "may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit" and does not strip officers of their decision-making discretion.

So if the law is the same, why does this matter?

Because adjudication is not just about the law on the books. It is about how thousands of officers apply that law to messy, human files every day. For years, the practical reality for many adjustment applicants was simple: if you were eligible, admissible, and qualified under your category, approval generally followed. Discretion existed in theory but rarely bit. This memo is an instruction to make discretion bite — to treat the discretionary inquiry as a live, dispositive question rather than a formality. That is not a change in the statute. It is a change in the weather, and the weather is what you actually have to walk through.

The press release and the memo are not the same document — and DHS has now confirmed it

It is worth slowing down on the gap between USCIS's public messaging and the memo it is describing, because the two say meaningfully different things — and only one of them is law.

A newsroom announcement is exactly that: messaging. It binds no one, amends no statute, and does not dictate the outcome in your case. The operative document is the memo, and even the memo does not say what the press release implies. Nowhere does PM-602-0199 require consular processing, bar adjustment of status, or limit approvals to "extraordinary circumstances" as a categorical rule. What it directs is case-by-case discretionary weighing — and notice that the press release, for all its bravado, concedes exactly that: officers are told to "consider all relevant factors and information on a case-by-case basis." The headline says one thing; the operative instruction says another.

On May 29, 2026 — one week after the press release — DHS itself confirmed exactly this gap. In a clarification reported by The New York Times, a DHS spokesperson stated that PM-602-0199 was "just a reminder to officers of their discretionary authority, which has always existed on a case-by-case basis," and that the new framework is "not a blanket change." A senior White House official, separately, told the NYT that the guidance was "a housekeeping measure rather than a major policy shift." These are striking statements, because they walk back the press release without altering a word of the memo. The discretionary tightening directed at officers stands. What has changed is the agency's willingness to defend the "only in extraordinary circumstances" public framing.

Just as importantly, the press release was silent on every carve-out the memo preserves. It did not mention dual-intent categories. It did not mention immediate relatives, § 245(i), or § 245(k). It did not mention the immigrant categories — like asylee adjustment — for which staying and adjusting is the only lawful path to permanent residence. Those exceptions did not disappear; they simply did not make it into the talking points. The May 29 clarification has now restored some of those nuances to the public conversation, but the burden remains on applicants and counsel to make the case for them in individual files.

So here is the practical translation. If you are eligible to adjust, do not let a headline frighten you out of a benefit you may well deserve. The correct response to "only in extraordinary circumstances" is not to abandon adjustment of status — it is to build the affirmative case that makes yours a case worth granting. But do not wave the announcement away as empty noise, either. Aggressive public framing is how an agency signals to its own officers what it expects of them. Read it as a preview of how your file will be received, and prepare accordingly.

The legal hook USCIS is hanging this on — and where the immigration bar says it falls short

The memo is built on a foundation of genuinely old authority. It leans heavily on Matter of Blas, 15 I&N Dec. 626 (BIA 1974; A.G. 1976), a Board of Immigration Appeals decision (later affirmed by the Attorney General) that called adjustment of status an "extraordinary" relief and warned it "was not designed to supersede the regular consular visa-issuing process." It stacks on Supreme Court language describing relief from removal as "always a matter of grace" — most prominently from Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) — and a long line of circuit decisions saying the same.

None of that is new. USCIS's own Policy Manual has said for some time that a favorable exercise of discretion is a matter of administrative grace, and that meeting the eligibility requirements does not automatically entitle an applicant to a green card (see 7 USCIS-PM A.10). What PM-602-0199 adds is emphasis and direction: it tells officers that this principle is not a dusty footnote but the lens through which they should be reading the file in front of them.

The reasoning runs like this. Congress built the parole and nonimmigrant systems on an expectation that people would leave when their authorized purpose ended — parolees when the parole purpose is served, nonimmigrants when their stay expires. Congress also showed, the memo argues, a preference for people immigrating from abroad through a U.S. consulate. So when someone admitted or paroled temporarily decides to stay and adjust instead, the memo treats that choice as cutting against them.

But the memo's reliance on these particular cases is not as airtight as USCIS suggests. The immigration bar has pointed out, in formal practice analysis published on May 27, 2026, that the cited authorities are weaker than the memo lets on:

Matter of Blas itself does not stand for what USCIS says it does. Blas involved a foreign national who lied about his reasons for coming to the United States and about his employment, who came specifically so his adoptive parents could file an I-130 for him, who abandoned a wife and four children, divorced his wife while in the United States, and apparently intended to marry an LPR here. The case is laced with negative factors going to credibility, marital fraud, and family abandonment. Notably, the Blas court itself observed that "the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act are supposed to favor the reuniting of families" — and indicated it would have viewed the case differently if the petitioner had simply been long-estranged from his prior spouse and married a U.S. citizen here. Reading Blas as a general statement that adjustment is disfavored absent extraordinary circumstances stretches the case well past its facts.

Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996), is not on point. The PM cites Mendez-Moralez multiple times, but the quoted language addresses discretion in the context of a § 212(h) waiver — and the Mendez-Moralez court itself drew a careful distinction between § 212(h) discretionary analysis and the discretionary analysis governing INA § 245 adjustment cases, expressly referring the latter to Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970). Importing the § 212(h) framework into the § 245 analysis is precisely the move Mendez-Moralez declined to make.

The memo also omits a significant line of authority. Matter of Arai — which the Mendez-Moralez court itself identified as the governing analysis for adjustment discretion — listed the favorable factors that should weigh in an applicant's favor: family ties, hardship, length of residence in the United States, and similar equities. Arai even treated an approved Labor Certification as a positive factor that could "benefit the country." None of that appears in PM-602-0199. For immediate-relative cases, Matter of Ibrahim, 18 I&N Dec. 55 (BIA 1981), and Matter of Cavazos, 17 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980), hold that where adjustment is based on an immediate-relative petition and the only adverse factor is preconceived intent, adjustment should generally be granted. The memo omits these cases as well.

The practical significance for any case being filed under this memo is that the legal record is not one-sided, and a well-built response brief should not treat it as such. We return to that point further on.

The two sentences that actually change your odds on adjustment of status discretion

Most of PM-602-0199 is throat-clearing. The real teeth are in two places.

First, the memo elevates the act of staying-and-adjusting into an affirmative negative factor. It says that an applicant's "failure to depart as expected" is "highly relevant" to the discretionary analysis, and "particularly true when the failure is connected to the alien's intention to reside permanently in the United States and the alien could have achieved that goal through the normal immigrant visa process." Read that twice. The very thing many applicants do — enter temporarily, then pursue a green card here — is now framed as a mark against them, not a neutral fact.

Second, and this is the line that should reshape how applications are built, the memo states that "the absence of adverse factors, by itself, does not demonstrate such unusual or outstanding equities." In plain English: a clean record is no longer the finish line. It is the starting line. Officers are being told that not having problems is not the same as deserving the benefit, and that applicants may need to come forward with affirmative, documented positive equities to earn a favorable decision.

Put those two moves together and you get the practical headline of this memo: mere eligibility may no longer be enough in practice. Eligibility gets you in the door. Discretion decides whether you walk out with the green card.

What the memo changes vs. what it leaves untouched

It is just as important to know the limits of this memo as it is to know its reach. Here is the honest accounting:

What PM-602-0199 does	What it does not do
Directs officers to treat adjustment as "extraordinary" discretionary grace, not a default outcome	Repeal or amend INA § 245 or any regulation
Frames failure to depart and avoidance of consular processing as adverse discretionary factors	Eliminate any green card eligibility category
Shifts the burden so a clean record alone is insufficient — positive equities must be shown	Touch the immediate-relative exemptions, § 245(i), or § 245(k)
Reminds officers that discretionary denials must spell out a positive/negative factor analysis in writing	Override the recognized dual-intent doctrines (E, H-1B, L, O, etc.)
Signals that USCIS will scrutinize specific "pathways" and "populations" and may issue targeted guidance later	Apply to the genuinely non-discretionary adjustment provisions identified in USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 7, Ch. 10

The memo is a framing document and an adjudicatory directive. It is a thumb on the scale, not a new statute. But thumbs on scales decide cases.

One precision note, because accuracy here matters: not all of INA § 209 is non-discretionary. Refugee adjustment under § 209(a) is mandatory once eligibility and admissibility are established, but asylee adjustment under § 209(b) is discretionary by the statute's own terms. Asylees therefore sit inside the discretionary universe this memo addresses — even though the memo's "you should have departed and consular-processed" rationale fits them poorly, because § 209 is their only route to a green card and they cannot safely return to the country they fled.

Which adjustment-of-status categories the memo actually reaches

For the first week after PM-602-0199 issued, prospective applicants and counsel were left to infer from the memo's general language which categories of cases fell inside or outside its scope. That inference exercise is no longer necessary. USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 10, identifies the relevant categories explicitly. The May 27, 2026 AILA practice pointer (AILA Doc. No. 26052602) collected the lists in usable form, and they are reproduced here for clarity:

Adjustment-of-status provisions that are non-discretionary — and to which PM-602-0199's discretionary tightening therefore does not reach:

• Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA)

• Refugee adjustment under INA § 209(a)

• Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 (HRIFA)

• Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF)

If you are adjusting under any of these, the memo's discretionary framework is not the legal framework that governs your case.

Adjustment-of-status provisions that involve discretion — and to which PM-602-0199 does apply:

• Family-based, employment-based, and diversity-visa adjustment (the broad mainstream of green card cases)

• EB-4 special-immigrant adjustment

• Trafficking victim–based adjustment

• Crime victim–based adjustment

• Asylee adjustment under INA § 209(b)

• Cuban Adjustment Act

• Lautenberg parolees — the category for former Soviet Union, Indochinese, and Iranian parolees

• Section 13 adjustment for certain diplomats and high-ranking officials unable to return home

Two observations worth pulling out of this list. First, the vast majority of routinely filed adjustment cases — family-based, employment-based (including all EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-5 cases that proceed by AOS), and diversity-visa — sit squarely within the discretionary universe the memo governs. The carve-outs are real but narrow. Second, Lautenberg parolees from Iran are within the discretionary universe of this memo, which matters for the small but significant number of clients adjusting under that authority. We return to the Iranian-applicant dimension in its own section below.

The discretionary balancing in practice: which factors officers are now weighing

Under PM-602-0199's framework, officers are directed to weigh both adverse and positive factors under the totality of the circumstances. The categories below are drawn from the operative memo and from the USCIS Policy Manual's discretionary-analysis chapters (Vol. 7, Part A, Ch. 10; Vol. 1, Part E, Ch. 8) as identified in AILA's practice pointer.

Adverse factors officers are specifically instructed to weigh:

• Violations of immigration law or conditions of a prior status

• Fraud or false testimony in dealings with USCIS or any government agency

• Conduct inconsistent with the purpose of the nonimmigrant or parole status

• Failure to depart when the purpose of admission or parole was accomplished

• Applying for AOS in a category where consular processing is available — the new and most consequential addition

• Intent to circumvent the ordinary consular process (preconceived intent)

Positive factors officers are instructed to weigh:

• Family ties in the United States — particularly U.S. citizen or LPR spouses and children, especially where separation would cause hardship

• The applicant's moral character

• National-interest considerations, including economic contributions

Evidence types that demonstrate positive factors and that we routinely build into our filings:

• Deep U.S. family ties (U.S. citizen or LPR spouse and children, with hardship documented in concrete terms)

• Long-term lawful presence and community integration (employment history, tax records, civic involvement, supporting community letters)

• Affirmative evidence of good moral character (no criminal history, charitable contributions, professional accomplishments)

• Demonstrated benefit to the United States (employer sponsorship letters, specialized skills, economic contributions, scholarship or research impact)

The memo's directive — "the absence of adverse factors, by itself, does not demonstrate such unusual or outstanding equities" — is what makes the affirmative-evidence side of the ledger central. A clean record is not the case. The positive equities are the case. Build them, and document them.

Who should be paying attention

The memo itself did not identify specific immigrant categories or populations by name. The accompanying press release was far less restrained — it expressly named students, temporary workers, and tourist-visa holders as the entrants USCIS has in mind. The May 29 DHS clarification softened the public framing but did not retract those categorical concerns. The risk map below is therefore drawn from the memo, the press release, and now the DHS clarification — taken together. Use it to gauge exposure, not as a prediction of any individual outcome.

Higher discretionary exposure	Lower (but not zero) exposure
Long overstays before filing; prolonged unlawful presence	Applicants in valid dual-intent status who file promptly and have stayed in status
Periods of unauthorized employment or failure to maintain status	Cases with strong, well-documented positive equities (family, contributions, hardship)
Parole-based presence where the parole purpose has ended	Non-discretionary statutory pathways (refugee adjustment under § 209(a), NACARA, HRIFA, LRIF)
B-1/B-2 visitors who enter, then marry and adjust	Immediate relatives with clean histories and a clear, credible entry narrative
F-1 or other nonimmigrants who fell out of status	Applicants with no status gaps and a coherent intent story
245(k) employment-based filings with any arrest or criminal-history overlay	Applicants whose petitions and equities tell a single, consistent positive story
Any file with inconsistencies, prior misrepresentation concerns, or thin equities

If you see your own situation on the left side of that table, the takeaway is not panic — it is preparation. A discretionary denial is not a foregone conclusion. It is a contest you now have to actively win.

The dual-intent trap most people will miss

Here is the part that should worry employment-based applicants who assume they are insulated. The memo expressly preserves the dual-intent doctrine — it acknowledges that applying to adjust is not inconsistent with holding a dual-intent nonimmigrant status, and that some immigrant categories make adjustment the only realistic path. Good.

But read footnote 20. It says, in terms, that maintaining lawful status in a dual-intent category "is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion."

That is a meaningful limit. If you are an L-1, H-1B, O-1, or E visa holder adjusting through, say, an EB-1A or EB-2 National Interest Waiver petition, you cannot assume that because you kept status flawlessly, discretion is automatic. Keeping status keeps you eligible. Under this memo, it does not, by itself, earn you the grant. The affirmative-equities expectation applies to you too. For high-skilled applicants, that often means the very evidence that drives the underlying petition — extraordinary achievement, contributions to the United States, the national importance of the work — should be repackaged to do double duty as discretionary equities. The story that makes you approvable on the merits is the same story that makes you deserving as a matter of grace. Tell it deliberately.

The immediate-relative wrinkle

The memo leaves the statutory immediate-relative exemptions intact. So the classic case — a B-2 visitor who overstays, marries a U.S. citizen, and adjusts — remains statutorily eligible. The bars in § 245(c) do not reach immediate relatives the way they reach others.

But nothing in PM-602-0199 exempts immediate relatives from the discretionary analysis. And the memo's central theory — that staying and adjusting instead of departing for consular processing is an adverse factor — describes that exact applicant. The principal exposure in these cases may therefore shift from the statutory stage to the discretionary one, even where Congress expressly exempted immediate relatives from several of the § 245(c) bars that constrain other applicants.

There is, however, a counterweight in the case law that immediate-relative cases should now lean on more heavily than they have in the past. Matter of Ibrahim, 18 I&N Dec. 55 (BIA 1981), and Matter of Cavazos, 17 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980), squarely hold that where adjustment is based on an immediate-relative petition and the only adverse factor is preconceived intent, adjustment should generally be granted. PM-602-0199 does not overrule those decisions — it does not even cite them. For immediate-relative applicants whose only adverse factor is the very stay-and-adjust pattern this memo targets, Ibrahim and Cavazos are the doctrinal answer, and they belong in the brief that accompanies the filing.

That tension between the memo's discretionary framework and the immediate-relative doctrine is, in our view, both the sharpest practical warning for this group and one of the strongest arguments any future legal challenge will raise: that USCIS is scrutinizing at the discretionary stage the very conduct Congress chose not to bar at the eligibility stage.

If you are an Iranian national, read this section twice

This memo does not stand alone, and that is the part that matters most for the clients we serve. It is the latest entry in a sequence of 2025–2026 USCIS actions tightening discretionary adjudication — including periods of enhanced vetting, adjudicatory pauses, and heightened discretionary scrutiny affecting applicants from certain designated "high-risk" countries, and USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-26 (November 27, 2025), which folded Presidential Proclamation 10949 into the Policy Manual's discretionary framework.

Under that guidance, USCIS directs officers to treat relevant country-specific factors identified in PP 10949 — such as the insufficient vetting and screening information available from the listed countries — as significant negative factors in discretionary benefit adjudications, and it expressly reaches adjustment of status. Iran is one of the nineteen designated countries. (The official text is USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-26, available through the USCIS Policy Manual updates page.)

Stack the two regimes together and the picture for many Iranian applicants is sobering. PM-602-0199 tells officers that adjustment is a discretionary grace requiring affirmative equities. The PP 10949 framework directs those same officers to treat the country-specific concerns the proclamation identifies as significant negative factors in that same discretionary balance — and, in practical terms, it is an applicant's nationality that brings those considerations into the file. Neither development makes you ineligible. Both make the discretionary contest harder and raise the stakes of building a complete, persuasive, equities-forward record. In particular, this is the moment to stop thinking of the green card application as a paperwork exercise and start thinking of it as a case to be proven.

A specific point for Iranian Lautenberg parolees. USCIS Policy Manual Vol. 7, Ch. 10 expressly classifies Lautenberg parolee adjustment — including for former Soviet Union, Indochinese, and Iranian parolees — as a discretionary provision rather than a non-discretionary one. PM-602-0199's framework therefore reaches Iranian Lautenberg parolees who are now pursuing adjustment, and the careful affirmative-equities case-building this memo demands is fully applicable to those files. This is not a category that escapes the new framework.

The May 29 DHS clarification does not change the country-specific overlay. DHS's statement to the NYT addressed the procedural question of who must depart to consular-process; it did not retract PA-2025-26, PP 10949, or any related country-specific guidance. For Iranian applicants, the practical implication of the clarification is narrower than headlines suggest: more flexibility on the procedural pathway in some cases, but no relief from the country-specific factors that operate alongside it.

There is, however, a meaningful counterweight, and it belongs in any honest assessment. The PP 10949 discretion regime is already being challenged in federal court. Litigation contesting PA-2025-26 and the companion hold memoranda (PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194) is underway, and a federal district court has already granted a partial preliminary injunction — barring the government from applying both the adjudicative-hold policy and the country-specific-factors policy to plaintiffs who came forward with concrete evidence of harm. That ruling is limited in reach, and the litigation is far from over, but it confirms these policies are contestable rather than immovable. For anyone weighing whether to file now, wait, or pursue a different path, the existence of active — and partly successful — litigation is itself a reason to get tailored advice rather than react to headlines.

Consular processing vs. adjustment: the calculus just shifted

For years, adjusting inside the U.S. was the default reflex — you avoid international travel, you keep working, you wait it out at home. PM-602-0199 quietly raises the cost of that reflex by making the choice to adjust a point the government can hold against you, and the May 22 announcement made the steering explicit, openly telling temporary entrants to "return to their home country to apply." The May 29 DHS clarification softens the messaging on this point but does not retract the underlying instruction. The choice is now genuinely case-specific — not a default.

Consideration	Adjustment of Status (in the U.S.)	Consular Processing (abroad)
Discretionary posture under this memo	Now framed as "extraordinary grace"; the act of adjusting can be weighed against you	The "ordinary" process the memo says Congress preferred
Travel	No international travel required	Requires departing the U.S.; triggers re-entry and unlawful-presence bar exposure
Ability to work/wait in the U.S.	Generally yes, with EAD/AP	No — you wait abroad
Review of a denial	Many discretionary AOS determinations are difficult to challenge given jurisdictional limits on judicial review (though purely legal and constitutional questions may remain reviewable)	Consular decisions face the doctrine of consular nonreviewability
Best fit	Strong equities, valid status, no status gaps, dual-intent categories	Some cases with status problems where the discretionary "stay-and-adjust" narrative is itself the liability

This is not a one-size answer. It is a question that now demands a deliberate, case-specific decision — ideally before anything is filed. And the procedural mechanics matter: if an I-130 or I-140 petition was filed with the box checked for "adjustment of status" and the applicant later decides on consular processing, an I-824 will be required to transfer the petition to the National Visa Center. The reverse — petition filed for consular processing, applicant later electing to adjust — generally requires no I-824, because USCIS will retain the petition automatically when the I-485 is filed. For cases where the AOS-versus-CP decision is genuinely uncertain, filing the underlying petition for "immigrant visa processing" preserves flexibility at lower procedural cost — but requires periodic contact with NVC (we recommend annually) to ensure the petition is not revoked.

What seasoned practitioners are now putting in their briefs

PM-602-0199 is now adjudicatory framework. Counsel filing into that framework should not assume the adverse factors the memo identifies will be balanced sua sponte by the discretionary equities recognized in the established case law. The brief that accompanies a strong adjustment filing in the post-PM-602-0199 environment should affirmatively cite the case law the memo itself omits:

For all adjustment-of-status applications, Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970), remains the governing analysis for the favorable factors in the discretionary balance. Arai identifies family ties, hardship, length of residence in the United States, and similar equities as positive factors, and treats an approved labor certification as a positive factor that can "benefit the country." It is the doctrinal counterweight to the memo's adverse-factor catalog.

For immediate-relative cases, Matter of Ibrahim, 18 I&N Dec. 55 (BIA 1981), and Matter of Cavazos, 17 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980), provide that where adjustment is based on an immediate-relative petition and the only adverse factor is preconceived intent, adjustment should generally be granted. These cases were not overruled by PM-602-0199 and are not cited in it; they belong on the record.

To respond directly to the memo's own case citations, the limits of Matter of Blas and Matter of Mendez-Moralez (discussed above) are an appropriate part of any well-built response brief. Blas turned on a particularly unfavorable set of facts not present in most cases — and the Blas court itself emphasized that the INA favors reuniting families. Mendez-Moralez expressly distinguished § 212(h) waiver discretion from INA § 245 discretion. Counsel should not let the memo's invocation of these cases stand unexamined.

For the broader purpose-and-background context, USCIS Policy Manual Vol. 7, Part A, Ch. 1, identifies Congress's purposes for the adjustment-of-status provision as: enabling certain aliens physically present in the United States to become LPRs without traveling abroad; ensuring national security and public safety; advancing economic growth and a robust immigrant labor force; promoting family unity; and accommodating humanitarian resettlement. These are USCIS's own articulated purposes — not the practitioner bar's — and they are inconsistent with the memo's "extraordinary, narrow, exceptional" rhetoric. They should appear in the record where appropriate.

What is coming: the anticipated elimination of duration of status for F, J, and I visa holders

A separate forward-looking development is worth flagging because it interacts directly with the PM-602-0199 framework. A final rule eliminating duration-of-status (D/S) admission for F, J, and I visa holders is anticipated to publish soon and is expected to take effect sixty days after publication. Under the anticipated rule, F, J, and I visa holders will no longer be admitted for the duration of their program; they will instead receive specific admission periods, and after the effective date will start accruing unlawful presence if they overstay their program end dates (up to a maximum accrual period of four years). Extensions, program changes, and applications for OPT or STEM OPT will require Form I-539 filings, and applicants will be in "periods of authorized stay" while those applications are pending if their program dates have ended.

The interaction with PM-602-0199 is direct and consequential. For F-1, J-1, and I visa holders pursuing a green card by AOS — particularly those who fall out of status — the anticipated D/S elimination rule converts what was previously a grace period into a clock that runs against them. Status gaps will accrue unlawful presence; unlawful presence is itself an adverse discretionary factor under PM-602-0199's framework; and the three- and ten-year bars will, depending on circumstances, attach to any future departure for consular processing. For students and exchange visitors already in the green-card pipeline, this is a reason to revisit the strategy now, before the new rule takes effect, rather than after.

Two related precedents are worth knowing. Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabally, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), holds that a departure on advance parole during a pending adjustment application does not trigger the three- or ten-year unlawful-presence bars. The Department of State's interpretation is consistent — readmission on advance parole following a brief departure is not a "departure" that triggers the bars. Arrabally remains good law, but its protection depends on the AOS application being pending at the time of the departure. For applicants whose AOS is denied and who then depart, Arrabally's protection does not apply, and the bars may attach.

CSPA and the derivative children who could age out

The Child Status Protection Act of 2002 (CSPA) is the statute Congress enacted specifically to prevent derivative children from aging out of their parent's immigrant visa petition while waiting for adjudication. Under current USCIS policy, a child's CSPA age is frozen until final adjudication of the I-485. If the I-485 is denied — and not renewed in removal proceedings — the child will likely lose CSPA protection and may age out. These children would no longer be eligible for derivative status on their parent's nonimmigrant visas and may have no means of maintaining lawful status in the United States.

This is a discretionary factor of meaningful weight that PM-602-0199 does not address. A denial of the parent's I-485 does not just deny the parent a green card — it can foreclose the child's lawful status entirely. Counsel should brief that consequence explicitly. Congress enacted CSPA in 2002 to prevent exactly this outcome, and the equities involved in age-out — a derivative child who waited years for a system to function as designed — are precisely the kind of "outstanding equity" the memo demands.

What we are advising clients to do right now

The good news is that this memo rewards exactly the kind of careful, front-loaded lawyering that should have been happening anyway. Concretely:

Do the discretionary analysis before you file, not after the RFE. Map every potential adverse factor in the file — gaps, unauthorized work, the entry narrative, prior inconsistencies — and decide how each will be addressed in the initial filing rather than scrambling to explain it later.

Build an affirmative equities record. Family ties, U.S.-citizen children, community and professional contributions, tax compliance, hardship, the value of the applicant's work to the country. Document it, don't assert it. Under this memo, "I have no problems" is no longer the argument; "here is why I affirmatively deserve this" is.

Get the intent story straight and consistent. The memo invites officers to scrutinize whether someone entered temporarily while secretly intending to stay. Inconsistencies across visa applications, entries, and filings are now more dangerous than ever. Reconcile them up front.

Treat the petition and the equities as one story. Especially in EB-1A and NIW cases, the merits evidence and the discretionary equities should reinforce each other, not live in separate silos.

Run the AOS-versus-consular decision as an actual decision. In any case with a status blemish, parole-based presence, or — for our practice — a PP 10949 nationality, weigh the two paths deliberately and document the reasoning. Consular processing has its own risks — the consular doctrine of nonreviewability is real, and applicants outside the U.S. lose the EAD and travel flexibility that adjustment provides — but in some cases it is the better path, and that case should be made on the facts rather than assumed away.

For employers with pending I-485s, identify employees relying solely on AOS-based EADs to work who have not maintained underlying nonimmigrant status. Any such employee whose application was filed under § 245(k), or who has any arrest or criminal history, faces elevated discretionary risk. The right answer is often to change status to a dual-intent category (such as H-1B) before AOS is adjudicated, where the timeline permits.

Prepare clients for new interview questions. Officers under this memo are now asking, in interviews and in RFEs, questions that did not appear in routine adjustment adjudications a year ago — why the applicant chose AOS instead of consular processing, whether anything prevents consular processing, why the applicant remained in the United States after authorized status expired, and what family or other ties exist in the home country. These questions should be anticipated and rehearsed in interview preparation.

Expect more process. Anticipate more Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny, and longer discretionary write-ups in any denial. Prepare the record to survive that scrutiny on the first pass.

Plan for denial as well as approval. If an I-485 is denied and underlying nonimmigrant status has not been maintained, removal proceedings may be initiated. Clients in periods of authorized stay (rather than continuing nonimmigrant status) should understand this risk before filing. For applicants who may be subject to the three- or ten-year unlawful-presence bars on departure, the I-601A provisional waiver process — which currently takes approximately two years — should be initiated promptly where applicable.

What comes next

Two things are worth watching. First, litigation is likely — and the immigration bar has now formally characterized the memo as "ripe for litigation," on the ground that it ignores the many Congressional amendments expanding adjustment of status into the regulatory framework and that it relies on cases (most prominently Matter of Blas and Matter of Mendez-Moralez) that do not support the categorical position USCIS attributes to them. Expect challenges arguing that USCIS is converting individualized discretion into a de facto categorical denial machine, that it is penalizing conduct Congress forgave, and that the approach is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The aggressive "only in extraordinary circumstances" public framing will become Exhibit A in those challenges — plaintiffs will argue the agency has prejudged outcomes rather than weighing cases individually. The May 29 DHS clarification, paradoxically, may complicate plaintiffs' framing rather than help it: as AILA's executive director Benjamin Johnson put the point to the NYT, "It does make it more difficult to figure out what you're suing for when you don't know what this thing really is." But the underlying memo and its instructions to officers have not changed, and the underlying problems litigation would target — the cases the memo cites, the inversion of the discretionary balance, the silence on the case law that runs the other way — remain.

The government will counter with § 245(a)'s explicit discretionary language, Patel, the case-by-case instruction in the memo itself (now reinforced by DHS's May 29 statement), and the statutory limits on judicial review of discretionary decisions. These are hard fights, and the unreviewability problem is real — but they are not hopeless: parallel litigation over USCIS's related country-specific discretion policies has already produced a partial preliminary injunction, an early signal that at least some of this year's discretion measures are vulnerable to challenge.

Second — and more immediately — the memo openly telegraphs that USCIS will examine specific "pathways" and "discrete populations" and may issue category-specific guidance. Translation: this is a framework memo, and the targeted follow-ons are coming. Anyone in a category that USCIS views as straying from the "ordinary" consular path should treat this as a warning shot, not the final word.

The bottom line

PM-602-0199 did not change the law. It changed what you have to show. The day before this memo, a clean, eligible adjustment application could reasonably expect approval. The day after, that same applicant should expect to earn it — to come to USCIS with an affirmative case for why a green card from inside the United States is deserved, not merely available.

USCIS's public message was that adjustment is now reserved for "extraordinary circumstances." The May 29 DHS clarification has walked that public message back — but not the operative memo. The legal reality is more precise, and more workable: adjustment remains available, the categories remain intact, the exceptions Congress wrote remain in force, and DHS itself has now confirmed that discretion is to be exercised case-by-case rather than categorically. What has not changed is the central operational fact — that a clean record alone no longer carries the day. Read the headline as a warning, not a verdict. Read the clarification as a softening of public framing, not a softening of the underlying scrutiny.

For most well-documented applicants in valid status, this is a reason to prepare more carefully, not to despair. For applicants with status blemishes, parole-based presence, prior inconsistencies, or — in our practice — a designated nationality, it is a reason to get experienced counsel involved early, before the first form is signed. The cases that will struggle under this memo are the ones filed on autopilot. The cases that will succeed are the ones built like the contested matters they have quietly become.

----------

This article is provided by LexElite Law, PLLC, for general informational purposes and reflects our reading of USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 and the related USCIS newsroom announcement dated May 22, 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law is fact-specific and changes quickly; the official memorandum is issued by USCIS and can be located through the USCIS Policy Memoranda page.

For advice regarding your specific situation, you may consult your trusted attorney or schedule an appointment for a confidential consultation with us.