Search results for: USCIS Policy Memorandum

In this episode of the Greenberg Traurig’s Immigration Insights Podcast, host Kate Kalmykov is joined by GT colleagues Jen Hermansky and Michael Eisenstadt to analyze the USCIS Policy Memorandum issued on May 21, 2026, which represents a shift in how the agency intends to handle adjustment of status (AOS)—the process by which foreign nationals in the United States apply for a green card without leaving the country.

The memo reframes AOS as an “extraordinary benefit” subject to broad agency discretion, suggesting that most applicants should instead pursue consular processing at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. The panelists question whether this shift is operationally feasible given consulate understaffing, existing visa processing backlogs, and the ongoing pause on immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries.

Their discussion covers the memo’s discretionary balancing test, its implications for a wide range of visa holders, and the tension between the memo’s guidance and existing statutory provisions that already permit AOS filings in many of the situations the memo treats as negative factors.

They share practical guidance, including maintaining underlying nonimmigrant status, exercising caution around international travel for advance parole holders, and building documentation of economic and national interest arguments in support of pending or anticipated AOS filings.

On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, outlining a change to the adjustment of status (AOS) process under Form I-485. The Policy Memorandum (PM) states that applicants for permanent residence should generally process for immigrant visas at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad following immigrant petition approval, except in limited circumstances. The PM reframes AOS as an “extraordinary discretionary benefit.”

AOS is the procedure for applying for permanent residence, commonly referred to as a “green card,” while physically in the United States. It is used by applicants who are in the U.S. and relies on a statutory framework outlining AOS eligibility criteria and the administrative process for adjudicating applications. For those outside the U.S., applicants for permanent residence go through a similar process at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, known as “consular processing.” The PM states that AOS is not an entitlement but a discretionary form of “administrative grace,” even where statutory eligibility is met. The PM characterizes AOS as an “extraordinary” remedy that allows applicants to “bypass” the immigrant visa process through consular processing, which the memo describes as the “normal” procedure that “the Congress generally expects aliens to follow.” The PM instructs officers to apply a case-by-case discretionary analysis, weighing positive and negative factors, including immigration violations, failure to maintain status, and failure to depart, as part of a totality of the circumstances assessment.

Who Does This Impact

The PM applies to all AOS applicants, including individuals with:

(1) pending or approved family-based immigrant petitions (Form I-130);
(2) pending or approved employment-based immigrant petitions (Form I-140); and
(3) pending or approved immigrant investor petitions (Form I-526/Form I-526E).

What Is New

The PM reframes AOS as secondary to consular processing. It characterizes AOS as an “extraordinary” form of relief, describes it as an exception that allows applicants to avoid consular processing and states that AOS should be granted sparingly.

What Is Important

The PM directs USCIS officers to evaluate whether an applicant should be granted AOS based on overall equities, including immigration compliance, moral character, family ties to the U.S., and conduct after admission as a nonimmigrant. Officers are instructed to conduct a totality of the circumstances analysis weighing positive against negative factors. The PM also confirms that discretionary denials must articulate why negative factors outweigh positive ones.

The PM elevates certain adverse factors, instructing officers to treat the following as “highly relevant”:

  • Failure to maintain nonimmigrant status;
  • Failure to depart after admission or parole;
  • Conduct inconsistent with the purpose of admission; or
  • Immigration violations or fraud.

The PM states that maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status in dual-intent categories (such as H-1B or L-1) does not automatically guarantee AOS approval; officers are still instructed to apply the totality of the circumstances test using the discretionary factors listed in the PM.

The current Administration has indefinitely suspended the issuance of immigrant visas via consular processing to nationals of 75 countries citing public charge concerns. Notably, the AOS process already includes public charge-related questions, while consular processing currently does not. A finding that an applicant does not warrant the “extraordinary measure” of AOS, combined with the immigrant visa suspension affecting nationals of those 75 countries, could leave a significant number of applicants unable to pursue permanent residence through either pathway. Such a broad suspension of immigrant visas raises questions regarding Congressional intent, given that Congress has statutorily authorized the issuance of 480,000 family-based green cards and 140,000 employment-based each year.

The U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide are also facing capacity constraints following staff reductions, and applicants pursuing consular processing may encounter lengthy wait times for immigrant visas. Applicants with unlawful presence or status violations may trigger a three- or 10-year bar to reentry if they travel abroad and may wish to carefully consider whether to depart and the potential impact on subsequent immigrant visa processing.

Impact on Pending AOS Applications

The PM does not address whether it applies to already pending or newly filed AOS applications. There is no stated effective date, and no specific changes have been made to the USCIS Policy Manual. Because USCIS may seek to apply the PM to pending applications, applicants may consider gathering evidence of positive discretionary factors, including U.S. employment, absence of immigration violations, family and community ties in the U.S., and U.S. investments (particularly for EB-5 investors). USCIS may issue Requests for Evidence (RFEs) seeking documentation to support the totality of the circumstances determination.

Impact on Travel and Work Authorization for AOS Applicants

The PM does not specifically address travel on an advance parole document (AP) or working pursuant to an employment authorization document (EAD) issued while an AOS applicant is pending with USCIS. However, applicants who use AP to travel internationally should be aware that if USCIS seeks to deny the AOS while they are abroad under this guidance, the applicant may face obstacles reentering the U.S. Travel on AP carries additional considerations considering the PM’s publication.

Travel on AP may also disrupt certain types of underlying nonimmigrant status, including B, E, F, J, H-1B1, and O status. Applicants may wish to remain in the U.S. and forego international travel on AP to preserve underlying nonimmigrant status where possible.

What’s Unclear

The PM is subject to a range of interpretations, and its practical application to specific nonimmigrant classifications, including long-term work-authorized categories (dual intent or otherwise), is presently unclear. The PM states that the current statutory framework and the validity of precedent appellate decisions remain unchanged; however, a number of the court decisions cited in the PM are dated or were decided in other contexts, such as removal proceedings and are not directly relevant to AOS applications.

Potential Court Challenges

The PM directs adjudicators to treat AOS as an extraordinary measure secondary to consular processing requiring a showing of “unusual or outstanding circumstances,” which represents a shift in agency practice. Both the statutory interpretation and the reading of case law cited in the PM may become subject to litigation, depending on how the agency’s adjudication practices change.

The AOS statute includes certain exceptions permitting individuals to apply for permanent residence even where they may have violated status, overstayed a visa, or worked without authorization. For example, an immediate relative (such as a spouse or parent of a U.S. citizen) may still apply for AOS without having maintained status or where unauthorized employment occurred. Similarly, the statute provides an exception for certain employment-based applicants who have had a period of unauthorized stay or unauthorized employment of fewer than 180 days. Some of the “negative” factors listed in the PM, including failure to maintain nonimmigrant status and failure to depart after admission or parole, appear to conflict with these statutory exceptions and could form the basis for legal challenge.

Congress has expressly passed the AOS statute permitting these applications. USCIS administers the AOS applications. U.S. federal courts interpret whether policies by USCIS, such as the PM, conflict with Congressional intent or the language of the statute passed by Congress. Litigation in the federal courts may focus on claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including that the PM constitutes a rulemaking disguised as policy guidance (which would require public notice and comment procedures) and/or that the PM is not in accordance with the law (e.g. the “negative factors” listed in the PM conflict with statutory exceptions that still permit AOS approval).

From a policy standpoint, family reunification has been a longstanding principal of U.S. immigration law. Litigation may also focus on the PM’s expressed limitation of AOS as inconsistent with the statutory framework allowing AOS applications for family reunification, including in cases where an applicant violated status or accrued unlawful presence. For EB-5 applicants, Congress passed the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA), which explicitly permits the concurrent filing of AOS applications. There may be potential litigation challenges asserting that the PM conflicts with the plain text and Congressional intent of the RIA.

Any forthcoming litigation will likely seek a temporary restraining order (TRO), which could pause the PM from taking effect and being applied to pending cases.

Practical Considerations

  1. Applicants may document positive discretionary factors in newly filed AOS applications, including family ties in the U.S., lawful employment, community involvement, and tax compliance.
  2. Applicants should maintain their underlying nonimmigrant status where possible and may wish to forego international travel on AP.
  3. Applicants with an approved immigrant petition (Form I-130, Form I-140 or Form I526/I-526E) may wish to file Form I-824 with USCIS to initiate an immigrant visa case with the National Visa Center, which may be used in the event of a subsequent AOS denial.
  4. USCIS may issue additional guidance or clarification on the PM. The PM states that USCIS may issue further guidance on certain AOS categories or discrete populations to aid officers in identifying which applications may or may not be affected. USCIS may also clarify its policy positions following further review of the impact on applicants.

The PM may result in increased difficulty in obtaining a green card through the AOS process, particularly for applicants with prior immigration violations or those holding purely nonimmigrant intent visa categories (B-1/B-2, E-1/E-2/E-3, F-1, J-1, TN, H-1B1, and O-1). While the PM signals potential changes to the AOS process, the underlying statute remains unchanged and the PM may be subject to court challenge.

USCIS’s Policy Memorandum on ‘Revised Interview Waiver Guidance for Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence” went into effect on Dec. 10, 2018. The memorandum fully replaces the June 24, 2005, “Revised Interview Waiver Criteria for Form I-751, Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence.” These guidelines apply to I-751 cases filed as a joint petition or as a waiver of the joint filing requirement. Per the new memorandum, an officer may consider waiving an interview if they are satisfied that:

  • They can make a decision because the record contains sufficient evidence about the bona fides of the marriage (that the marriage was not entered into in order to evade U.S. immigration laws);
  • USCIS has previously interviewed the principal petitioner (for forms filed on or after Dec. 10, 2018);
  • There is no indication of fraud or misrepresentation in the Form I-751 or the supporting documentation; and
  • There are no complex facts or issues that require an interview to resolve.

For more on USCIS Policy Memorandums, click here.

On Aug. 28, 2017, USCIS released a policy memorandum that clarified the definition of “affiliate” and “subsidiary” for purposes of determining the H-1B ACWIA fee.  The H-1B ACWIA fee is $1500 for H-1B petitioners who have 26 or more full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, and half that amount ($750) for H-1B petitioners who have 25 or fewer FTE.  The FTE count includes those FTE employees employed by any affiliate or subsidiary of the H-1B employer.  The fee is mandatory for all new H-1B petitions, and then required again for the first extension.  Employers exempt from this fee include primary and secondary education institutions, institutions of higher education, and certain nonprofit entities.  This fee pays for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and other U.S. workers to attend job training and receive low-income scholarships or grants for math, engineering, or science enrichment courses administered by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Labor.

For purposes of clarification, the USCIS policy memorandum utilizes the definition of “affiliate” and “subsidiary” taken from the L-1 nonimmigrant regulations located at 8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii).  An “affiliate” is clarified as: (1) “one of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or individual” or (2) “one of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity.”  The term “subsidiary” is also clarified to be the same as defined in the L-1 nonimmigrant context, where it is “a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity.”  8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii).

The calculation is to be done by the adjudicating officer, who may use evidence including information in the petition, previous petitions, Form 10k, copies of corporate tax returns, or any public records.  Adjudicators are now tasked with implementing this and verifying that the calculations are correct so that the correct fee is submitted.

Greenberg Traurig will continue to monitor any developments related to the H-1B process.  For updates, please subscribe to our blog.

USCIS has issued a draft policy memorandum for comment entitled Age-Out Protection for Derivative U Nonimmigrant Status Holders: Pending Petitions, Initial Approvals, and Extensions of Status. The comment period for the memo ends January 10, 2013.

The memo offers guidance relating to U-3 derivative nonimmigrant petitions, which are petitions filed by the children of U-1 visa applicants to remain with their parents as their derivative beneficiaries. Until now, USCIS has held U-3 applications that were filed prior to the derivative turning 21 but were still pending when the derivative turned 21. The memo indicates that USCIS will review these applications on a case-by-case basis to determine whether each U-3 applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion. If so, these applicants will be granted deferred action and will be notified that they may apply for employment authorization.

In addition, the memo states that USCIS will extend age-out protection to U-3 applicants whose petitions are adjudicated on or after the effective date of the memo and will grant the full four-year validity period if the derivative meets the definition of “child” (i.e., is under age 21) at the time he/she is granted U-3 status, even if the child will turn 21 at some point during the validity period of the U-3 approval.

Also, U-3s who were granted U status for less than four years who have yet to turn 21 will be eligible to extend their U status up to a total period of four years, regardless of whether the U-3 will age out during the four-year period. These U-3s may file an I-539 to Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status.

Further, USCIS will allow U-3s who were previously granted U status for less than four years because they were turning 21 before the four year limit would be reached and have now attained age 21 to file a retroactive extension of their U-3 status for up to a total of four years on Form I-539.

The U visa was created by Congress to be available to certain victims of crimes in the United States who have been helpful, are being helpful, or are likely to be helpful to law enforcement in an investigation of the crime or prosecution of a criminal. This memo appears to remedy many of the issues caused by long-pending U applications, during which time many children of U-1 applicants turned 21. The memo appears to promote the use of discretion in those cases, and promotes family unity by allowing aged-out children to obtain a full four years of U nonimmigrant status. Since U visa holders are eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident after three years, the policies of this memo may assist U holders in obtaining permanent residence by returning them to U status where they did not initially receive at least three years of U status due to aging out.

In May 2026, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum signaling a shift in how employment-based permanent residence cases may be processed. The memorandum encourages adjudicators to deny adjustment of status (Form I-485) applications rather than issue requests for evidence (RFEs) in appropriate cases, with the expectation that many applicants could instead pursue immigrant visa processing abroad through U.S. consulates.

Considered alongside the current state of the Department of State (DOS), the policy raises an important question: can DOS realistically absorb an increase in these cases?

Recent reports suggest the answer is uncertain. Also see our June 2026 blog post on early implementation trends.

A Department Under Strain

A recent Financial Times article describes challenges facing the DOS. More than half of U.S. ambassadorial positions reportedly remain vacant, staffing has been reduced by more than 20%, and over 3,000 employees have departed. Career diplomats have been replaced at historically low rates, while consular sections – already managing high visa demand – are expected to operate with fewer personnel and reduced institutional experience.

Although embassies continue operating under Chargés d’Affaires, leadership vacancies and workforce reductions affect efficiency, consistency, and the DOS’ capacity to process complex immigration matters.

For years, employment-based applicants have generally viewed adjustment of status as the more predictable path to permanent residence because it allows them to remain in the United States while USCIS adjudicates the case. If a growing number of applicants are instead required to complete processing through U.S. consulates overseas, the operational realities at DOS become important.

What This Could Mean for Employment-Based Applicants

Longer Processing Times

Shifting cases from USCIS to DOS may transfer existing backlogs from one agency to another rather than reduce overall processing times.

Employment-based immigrant visa cases often require coordination across multiple government agencies, including the National Visa Center and the applicable U.S. embassy or consulate. Reduced staffing and fewer available interview appointments could lengthen the time required to complete permanent residence processing.

For employers planning workforce transitions or international recruitment, these delays may create uncertainty.

Greater Risk of Status Gaps

A key advantage of adjustment of status is that applicants may remain lawfully present in the United States while the application is pending.

Applicants pursuing consular processing, however, face a different set of challenges.

If an individual reaches the end of their underlying nonimmigrant status before an immigrant visa interview becomes available, questions may arise regarding whether they can lawfully remain in the United States while waiting for overseas processing. Depending on the facts of the case, applicants may need to maintain an independent nonimmigrant status for a longer period than originally anticipated.

This is particularly important for employees whose H-1B, L-1, E-2, TN, or other temporary status may be approaching expiration.

Employment Authorization May No Longer Be Available

Applicants adjusting status in the United States generally become eligible to obtain employment authorization documents (EADs) and advance parole while their Form I-485 is pending.

Applicants pursuing immigrant visa processing abroad generally do not receive these interim benefits.

As a result, employers may need to rely on extensions of underlying work-authorized status. Where extensions are unavailable, interruptions in employment authorization are a possibility worth planning for.

Travel and Mobility Challenges

Adjustment applicants typically receive advance parole allowing international travel while their green card application is pending.

Consular processing requires applicants to coordinate travel, visa interviews, medical examinations, and international logistics. Delays in visa issuance following an interview can result in employees remaining abroad for an extended period, disrupting business operations and personal obligations.

Variability in Visa Adjudications

Reduced staffing may also affect consistency.

Officers handling complex employment-based immigrant visa cases with less experience may produce greater variation in adjudications. Applicants and employers should anticipate more detailed interview preparation and more comprehensive supporting documentation.

Practical Considerations for Employers

Employers sponsoring permanent residence should evaluate whether employees have a viable strategy for maintaining work authorization if processing extends beyond original expectations.

Considerations include:

  • Reviewing expiration dates for underlying nonimmigrant status.
  • Identifying employees who may require additional H-1B, L-1, or other status extensions.
  • Preparing for longer overseas processing timelines.
  • Assessing business continuity if key personnel must remain abroad pending visa issuance.
  • Building additional time into onboarding and workforce planning.

Looking at the Broader Picture

These developments may represent more than a temporary adjustment.

If USCIS increasingly directs applicants toward consular processing while DOS continues operating with reduced staffing and leadership vacancies, employment-based immigration processing may experience changes affecting where cases are adjudicated and the timing of permanent residence processing.

Immigration strategies that assumed adjustment of status as the default path warrant review, with greater attention to maintaining nonimmigrant status, preserving uninterrupted work authorization, and preparing for longer and more complex consular processing.

As federal immigration agencies continue to evolve, permanent residence planning will benefit from evaluating how the immigration system functions as an interconnected whole rather than focusing on any single agency’s policy change in isolation.

When USCIS issued its May 21 memorandum emphasizing consular processing as the preferred pathway for many intending immigrants seeking permanent residence, the immigration community began raising questions. Would adjustment of status (AOS) applications become more difficult to approve? Would USCIS begin issuing widespread requests for evidence (RFEs) challenging applicants’ eligibility to adjust status in the United States? Would employment authorization and travel documents be affected? Would foreign nationals already pursuing AOS face increased scrutiny at interviews?

Now two weeks later, while it remains too early to draw definitive conclusions, implementation so far has been more measured than many initially anticipated. As is often the case with major immigration policy announcements, the practical impact of a memorandum depends not only on the language of the policy itself but also on how adjudicators interpret and apply that guidance in individual cases. Patterns are beginning to emerge, though the type of widespread disruption some stakeholders anticipated has not yet materialized. For a discussion of the memorandum, stream GT’s Immigration Insights Podcast Episode 25.

A Brief Reminder: What Did the Memorandum Do?

The memorandum signaled USCIS’s preference that many intending immigrants pursue immigrant visa processing abroad through U.S. consulates rather than AOS from within the United States. For decades, AOS has served as a critical pathway allowing eligible foreign nationals already present in the United States to complete the permanent residence process without departing the country. The memorandum raised concerns because it appeared to encourage greater scrutiny of adjustment filings and potentially shift adjudicative discretion toward consular processing in certain circumstances. Because AOS offers significant practical advantages – including the ability to remain in the United States while a case is pending, obtain employment authorization, and avoid many uncertainties associated with overseas visa processing – the memorandum generated concern among employers, foreign nationals, and immigration practitioners.

What Are We Seeing So Far?

While every case is unique, several trends have emerged during the first two weeks following issuance of the memorandum.[1]

Adjustment Applications Continue to Be Approved

Many AOS applications filed before the memorandum was issued continue to be approved, including for applicants in valid F-1, H-1B, and L-1 status. To date, there has been no indication of a blanket slowdown or freeze affecting adjustment applications that were already pending when the memorandum was released.

Employment Authorization and Travel Documents Continue Moving Forward

There are continued approvals of employment authorization documents (EADs) and advance parole (AP) applications filed in connection with AOS cases.

This is significant for applicants relying on adjustment-based work authorization or travel permission while awaiting a decision on their green card applications.

Adjustment Interviews Continue

Adjustment interviews at local USCIS field offices are continuing without apparent interruption. There is variation in how officers appear to be approaching the memorandum. In some interviews, applicants have reported that the memorandum was not discussed at all, with officers focusing on traditional adjustment issues such as admissibility, maintenance of status, employment history, family relationships, and application accuracy. In other interviews, applicants have reported being asked why they chose AOS rather than consular processing, a line of questioning consistent with the language and policy objectives reflected in the memorandum. At this stage, these questions may be exploratory rather than outcome-determinative. The fact that some officers are raising the issue suggests that field offices are aware of the guidance and may be incorporating it into interview practices.

Limited Reports of Requests for Evidence

One concern following the memorandum was whether USCIS would begin issuing RFEs requiring applicants to justify why AOS is appropriate in lieu of consular processing. While practitioners around the country have reported receiving such RFEs in some cases, our office has not yet received any RFEs specifically seeking that explanation. The relatively short period since the memorandum’s issuance makes it difficult to assess whether such requests will become more common. Historically, USCIS implementation of major policy changes often varies by field office, service center, and adjudicator before more consistent practices emerge. As additional cases move through the system, we may gain greater insight into whether these RFEs represent isolated examples or the beginning of a broader adjudication trend.

No Significant Travel Issues Reported

Travel concerns were another area of uncertainty following the memorandum. Many applicants questioned whether travel on AP or travel in H-1B and L-1 status could become more complicated if USCIS adopted a stronger preference for consular processing. To date, we have not received reports from clients indicating unusual travel-related complications attributable to the memorandum.

A Growing Interest in Preserving Consular Processing Options

One practical response is increased interest in maintaining flexibility. Some individuals with approved immigrant petitions are electing to file Form I-824, Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition, to preserve the possibility of consular processing should they decide – or be required – to pursue that route in the future. While filing Form I-824 is not necessary or advisable in every case, it reflects a broader trend among applicants seeking to keep multiple options available while the long-term impact of the memorandum becomes clearer. For certain individuals, particularly those with international travel obligations, complex immigration histories, or concerns about future policy developments, preserving optionality may be a prudent strategic consideration.

Considerations for Employers and Foreign Nationals

The memorandum is significant, but the implementation data available today does not support the conclusion that AOS is no longer viable or that applicants should automatically abandon pending or planned adjustment filings in favor of consular processing.

Each case warrants careful evaluation on its own merits. Factors such as immigration status, travel needs, country of citizenship, visa availability, processing times, family circumstances, and long-term immigration objectives should continue to drive strategic decision-making. For many applicants, AOS may remain the preferred and most practical path to permanent residence. For others, preserving consular processing as a backup option may provide additional flexibility. Immigration strategy is most effective when tailored to the individual circumstances of the applicant.

Looking Ahead

The first two weeks following the memorandum have provided some initial data points, but many questions remain unanswered. As additional cases move through interviews and adjudication, we expect to gain greater visibility into how field offices and service centers interpret the guidance. There may also be further policy clarification from USCIS, additional stakeholder engagement, new adjudication trends, and potentially litigation that could affect implementation. For now, AOS cases continue to move forward – applications are being approved, interviews are being conducted, employment authorization and travel documents continue to be issued.

[1] Disclaimer: The observations discussed in this blog post are based on our firm’s cases and discussions with colleagues throughout the immigration bar during the first two weeks following issuance of the memorandum. These observations are anecdotal in nature, may not be representative of all USCIS offices, adjudicators, or case types, and should not be viewed as predictive of any individual case outcome.

On Jan. 1, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a new policy memorandum—PM-602-0194: Hold and Review of USCIS Benefit Applications Filed by Aliens From Additional High-Risk Countries—that has had wide-ranging effects on immigration benefit processing. This guidance builds on the expanded travel restrictions under Presidential Proclamation 10998 (PP 10998), Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States, signed on Dec. 16, 2025, and effective Jan. 1, 2026.

PM-602-0194 directs USCIS officers to take three main actions:

  1. Place a holdon all pending benefit applications, subject to certain exceptions and regardless of entry date, for nationals of the countries listed in PP 10998, pending a comprehensive review;
  2. Conduct a comprehensive review of all policies, procedures, and screening and vetting processes for benefits requests for nationals of countries listed in PP 10998; and
  3. Conduct a comprehensive re-review of approved benefit requests for nationals of countries listed in PP 10998 that were approved on or after Jan. 20, 2021.

Now that almost 60 days have passed since the announcement, applicants may be seeing the effects of the policy in delayed applications, and in some cases requests for additional evidence that USCIS might consider in determining whether to exercise favorable discretion.

Who Is Impacted?

The hold and comprehensive review now apply to nationals of all countries listed in PP 10998. This expanded list includes (among others):

  • Afghanistan
  • Angola
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Benin
  • Burkina Faso
  • Burma (Myanmar)
  • Chad
  • Côte d’Ivoire
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Gabon
  • The Gambia
  • Haiti
  • Iran
  • Laos
  • Libya
  • Malawi
  • Mali
  • Mauritania
  • Niger
  • Nigeria
  • Senegal
  • Sierra Leone
  • Somalia
  • South Sudan
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Tanzania
  • Togo
  • Tonga
  • Turkmenistan
  • Venezuela
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

Individuals with Palestinian Authority–issued or endorsed travel documents are also included. This means the policy applies based on nationality, country of birth, or citizenship acquired through Citizenship-by-Investment (CBI) programs.

Exceptions

PM-602-0194 allows USCIS to continue adjudicating certain categories of benefit requests, including:

  • Individuals with a pending Form I-90, Form N-565, and Form N-600;
  • “Benefit requests that are a priority for law enforcement and where [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has requested that USCIS take adjudicative action to uphold public safety or national security;”
  • Form I-765, categories(c)(11) for an alien paroled into the United States in the public interest or temporarily for emergency reasons and (c)(14) for an alien granted deferred action only when the request comes from law enforcement because the noncitizen is assisting law enforcement;
  • Initial Form I-765, category (c)(8) for an asylum applicant (with a pending asylum application) who filed for asylum on or after Jan. 4, 1995;
  • Benefit requests for individuals whose entry would serve a United States national interest;
  • Benefit requests for athletes or members of an athletic team, including the coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives for the purpose of participating in the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state;
  • Benefit requests, or associated underlying benefits, for any programs that are terminated or discontinued as a result of an executive order, proclamation, Federal Register notice, or directive issued by the president, the secretary of homeland security, or the USCIS director; and
  • Decisions to automatically terminate automatic or ancillary benefit requests related to when an individual is granted legal permanent resident status or becomes a naturalized citizen.

The exceptions to the policy are limited and may not apply to many applicants. Moreover, almost 60 days have passed since this policy was announced and there are no further updates as to when these applications may go back into normal processing. Without any meaningful update from USCIS, applicants from the affected countries may continue to experience significant delays and/or additional USCIS scrutiny in the adjudication of their cases, irrespective of whether the applicant or beneficiary is inside or outside the United States.

On Dec. 2, 2025, USCIS issued a policy memorandum PM-602-0192 directing officers to place an adjudicative hold on

  1. all pending asylum applications (Form I-589), regardless of nationality, and;
  2. most pending immigration benefit requests – such as green cards, adjustment of status, travel documents, naturalization, etc. – filed by nationals of 19 countries designated as “high risk,” regardless of the entry date.

For nationals from above-mentioned 19 “high-risk” countries, the memorandum also mandates a comprehensive re-review of certain previously approved or pending cases if the applicant entered the United States on or after Jan. 20, 2021. This may include re-interviews, additional vetting, identity verification, or further security-based screenings.

The 19 “high risk” countries include: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

This policy is grounded in Presidential Proclamation 10949 (June 4, 2025), Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals To Protect the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, as known as the “travel ban,” and Executive Order 14161 (Jan. 20, 2025), Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorist and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, both of which emphasize enhanced national security review of foreign nationals from certain jurisdictions.

Why the Administration Implemented this Policy

The Memorandum cites two recent incidents involving foreign nationals accused of planning and attempting terrorist activity after entering the United States. USCIS notes that gaps in prior screening measures necessitate a broad reassessment of individuals from certain regions.

Impact on Affected Applicants

USCIS acknowledges that the hold and re-review requirements will slow adjudications, even significantly, but asserts that the delay is justified given the national security rationale. Applicants who have pending immigration benefits request may expect delays. The Memorandum also allows USCIS to require interviews for applicants who ordinarily would not need one. Though this policy does not automatically deny applications, adjudications will not resume until USCIS completes its review and issues implementing guidance. Applicants should also be aware that identity-related issues will receive heightened scrutiny. Inability to establish identity or inconsistent documentation may independently trigger ineligibility under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Practical Considerations for Affected Applicants

Nationals of the 19 “high-risk” countries may wish to:

  • Prepare for extended adjudication timelines;
  • Expect possible requests for re-interviews or additional evidence;
  • Ensure identity documents are complete and consistent; and
  • Consult counsel before international travel, especially where advance parole or re-entry permits are on hold.

Asylum applicants of any nationality should:

  • Monitor for updated operational guidance, which USCIS states will be issues within 90 days; and
  • Acknowledge that no asylum applications will move forward until USCIS lifts the hold.

Takeaways

This Memorandum represents the broadest national-security-based pause on immigration benefits since the “travel ban era.” USCIS states that the hold will remain in effect until lifted by a superseding directive from the USCIS director. It also emphasizes that this policy does not create individual rights or enforceable benefits. Given the scope of the pause, the enhanced security vetting it requires, and its overlap with prior travel ban, this policy may influence adjudications for a considerable period. USCIS has committed to issuing additional operational guidance within 90 days, which will determine how these reviews are implemented in practice and how quickly any movement on pending cases may resume.

FOR THE WEEK OF OCT. 3, 2022

DHS

  • TPS for Burma extended 18 months
    • Extended from 11/26/2022 through 5/25/2024
    • Notice will be published in the Federal Register on 9/27/2022

USCIS

  • Green cards extended for 24 months with timely-filed renewals
    • Green cards were previously extended for 12 months with timely-filed renewals
    • Applicants with pending renewals will receive amended receipt notices
    • Green card renewal receipt with expired green card is proof of status for I-9 purposes
  • Waiver of 60-day rule of immigration medical extended through 3/31/2023
    • Rule that green card applicants must file their immigration medical within 60 days of physician’s signature has been waived
    • Waiver was previously set to expire 9/30/2022

IER – DOJ activity

  • Focus on online job postings containing discriminatory preferences
  • Postings discriminated against non-U.S. citizens because they contained citizenship restrictions
  • Previous investigations in June 2022 regarding job postings that showed preference for foreign workers
  • Carefully review job postings and provide training to talent acquisition/recruiters

Global immigration

  • Canada ends all COVID-19 travel restrictions as of 10/1/2022
    • Travelers to Canada no longer need to:
      • provide proof of vaccination
      • test before or on arrival
      • undergo COVID-19 quarantine or isolation
      • monitor/report COVID-19 symptoms upon arrival

FOR THE WEEK OF OCT. 10, 2022

Capitol Hill – Legislation Currently in Play

  • Omnibus Spending Bill
    • We expect an Omnibus bill to be passed in December 2022. The Continuing Resolution passed Sept. 30, 2022, extended the funding for the government through Dec. 16, 2022. There will need to be an Omnibus passed during the post-election lame duck session before the end of the calendar year. Potential additions to the Omnibus:
      • EB-5 technical corrections
      • Immigrant Visa Exemptions for Foreign Students obtain a PhD in the U.S.
      • DACA relief to counter the 5th Circuit and Texas Federal District Court Exemption
      • Afghan Adjustment Act
      • Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Relief
    • National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
      • This legislation has been in conference for many months, and we expect a final package by October 28, 2022. The vote is currently projected for November 14, 2022. Senator Durbin is attempting to attach the recapture of immigrant visas for up to 40,000 nurses and physicians. It is unclear whether this amendment will survive, but if it does, it could help reduce some immigrant visa backlogs. 

Capitol Hill – Legislation Being Contemplated

  • Migrant Farmworker Legislation
  • Eliminating the Per Country Immigrant Visa Quota

DACA Updates

  • The 5th Circuit upheld the Federal District Court’s prior ruling that DACA is illegal.  
  • DACA will most probably be before the Supreme Court in this coming term. We believe the Supreme Court will rule that the program is illegal if and when they hear the case. We know legislation is the only solution.
  • Existing DACA recipients may continue to renew their DACA status and their work authorization and Advanced Parole remains valid; first-time DACA applicants remain ineligible.

FOR THE WEEK OF OCT. 17, 2022

Capitol Hill – Word on the street

  • Key Republicans are signaling there will be no immigration reform during the lame duck session without meaningful border reform
  • Meanwhile, Democrats continue to push for immigration form in the Omnibus and NDAA
    • Potential additions to Omnibus: EB-5 technical corrections, Immigrant visa exemptions for foreign students who obtain a PhD in the US; DACA relief; Afghan Adjustment Act; TPS relief
    • Potential additions to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): recapture for up to 40,000 immigrant visas for nurses and physicians

DACA Updates

  • Because existing DACA recipients may continue to renew their DACA status, the Hill will likely not act because harm is not eminent.

Refugee news

New Venezuelan program announced

Work permit applications/EADs

  • Adjudication is down to 4-5 months
  • Some Ukraine and Venezuelan applications should only take 3-4 weeks

Form I-9 news

  • DHS extends flexibilities regarding remote I-9 document verification until July 31, 2023
  • USCIS says employers should continue using the existing Form I-9, which expires Oct. 31, 2022, until further notice

 FOR THE WEEK OF OCT. 26, 2022

USCIS RFE Flexibility Extended

  • For RFEs, NOIDs and similar agency requests, USCIS will consider the response timely is it is received within 60 calendar days after the due date
  • Applies to eligible requests issued between March 1, 2020 and Jan. 24, 2023

DOS Report on Visa Appointments

  • State Department says it will reach pre-pandemic processing levels this fiscal year
  • Report urges visa applicants to travel to other embassies or consulates with shorter wait times

Work permit applications/EADs

  • Expedited processing now available for qualified healthcare and childcare workers’ initial EAD applications that have been pending for more than 90 days
  • Qualified healthcare and childcare workers defined

DHS Designates Ethiopia for TPS

  • Available for Ethiopians residing in the U.S. before Oct. 20, 2022
  • Initial designation will last 18 months

PERM: Equal Pay Transparency (EPT) Laws

  • Several states have EPT law that may require employers to include the offered wage in job postings
  • States with EPT laws include California, Rhode Island, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, and New York.

FOR THE WEEK OF OCT. 31, 2022

DOS Encourages Third-Country National Applications

  • In a meeting with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), DOS leadership said it was encouraging posts to accept TCN applicants for all visa types
  • In a recent report, DOS urges visa applicants to travel to other embassies or consulates with shorter wait times

PERM: Processing 33% Slower in 2022

  • Prevailing wage requests and labor certification applications now taking eight (8) months
  • Slowdown resulting from staffing issues due to COVID and court-mandated emphasis on other filings

UK Visa Processing More Than 50% Slower Than Normal

  • Due to high global demand, UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) are reporting a seven week average processing time for standard visa processing for out of country visitor visa applications. Normally, the average processing time is three weeks. times currently experiencing high global demand meaning in some cases, it may take longer to process visa applications.
  • The processing times can change weekly; so please keep checking the visa decision waiting times for updates.