A sudden policy shift from the Trump administration that threatened to upend decades of U.S. immigration procedure has been partially walked back by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), following widespread outrage from legal experts and immigrant advocacy groups.
Last week, the administration issued a new policy guidance memorandum that would have barred most visa holders currently residing in the United States — including international students, temporary skilled workers, refugees, and immigrants married to U.S. citizens — from adjusting their immigration status to permanent resident (green card) without first leaving the country to apply through a U.S. embassy abroad. Under the new rule, many applicants would have faced years-long waiting periods for consular processing, a timeline that would force people to leave their jobs, separate from their families, and abandon hard-won opportunities in the U.S.
The sudden change sparked immediate condemnation across the immigration sector, with critics pointing out that the in-country adjustment of status process has been upheld by federal courts and used by every presidential administration for decades. Just days after the policy was announced, however, USCIS spokesperson Zach Kahler issued a clarification to CBS News, walking back the full scope of the restrictive rule. Kahler noted that applicants whose immigration applications are deemed to provide economic benefit to the U.S. or serve the national interest will still be allowed to complete their green card processing while remaining in the country, while other applicants may be required to pursue consular processing based on their individual circumstances. Kahler had previously referenced exceptions for “extraordinary circumstances” but offered no additional details on what would qualify.
As of the latest update, the agency has not released clear, public criteria to define what qualifies as an economic or national interest benefit, leaving applicants and legal representatives in a state of uncertainty. The policy memo itself frames in-country adjustment of status as a discretionary administrative privilege, rather than a right, that is not intended to replace standard consular immigrant visa processing. The guidance is issued as an internal instruction for USCIS officers tasked with reviewing adjustment of status applications.
Immigration legal experts warn that the policy shift, even with its partial exceptions, carries severe immediate harm for many prospective green card holders. The most immediate risks include prolonged family separation and the permanent loss of career and educational opportunities for people who have already built their lives in the U.S.
Steven Brown, an immigration attorney based in Houston, Texas, criticized the Trump administration’s approach to policy change, describing it as a “fire, ready, aim” strategy that prioritizes headline-making restrictions over thoughtful implementation. “They’ll put something out, get all the headlines, realise ‘we kind of screwed up’, and then work it back a little bit till it’s more of a tenable solution to what’s going on,” Brown explained in an interview with Middle East Eye.
Brown emphasized that the rewrite of the long-standing adjustment of status rule marks a fundamental, historic shift in U.S. immigration policy, but added that the entire change could be reversed by a future administration that takes office in 2029. He also noted that U.S. embassies and consulates abroad lack the institutional resources and on-the-ground documentation capabilities that USCIS, a Department of Homeland Security agency, has built up to conduct thorough national security vetting of applicants. “If we just take the idea of national security and vetting, I think USCIS is better positioned to do that vetting in terms of resources, in terms of what documentation they have, and how they know to interpret that information…USCIS would have the institutional knowledge,” Brown said.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association echoed these criticisms in a post on X last week, noting that both Democratic and Republican administrations have used the in-country adjustment process for decades, and that courts have repeatedly upheld its legality. The organization called the reversal of long-settled policy via internal memo “legally questionable and needlessly chaotic.” Legal challenges to the new policy are expected to be filed in the coming weeks.