What the May 22 memo changes
On May 22, 2026, USCIS issued a policy memo directing officers to grant adjustment of status (Form I-485) only in “extraordinary circumstances.” For decades, nonimmigrant visa holders already in the US could file I-485 domestically and wait for adjudication without leaving the country. That path is now effectively closed. USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler stated it directly: “From now on, 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.”
The policy is effective immediately, with no transition period. USCIS field offices and officers are expected to follow the new memorandum right away.
Who is affected
The memo covers nonimmigrant visa holders who had planned to transition to permanent residency through domestic adjustment of status. That includes:
- H-1B specialty occupation workers, the primary pipeline for employer-sponsored tech hiring
- L-1 intracompany transferees, used by multinational employers rotating staff into US offices
- F-1 students seeking to convert post-graduation employment into permanent residency
- B-1/B-2 visitors who entered on temporary visas
- K-1 fiancé(e) visa holders and others in family-based categories
Immigration practitioners note that the memo also instructs officers to weigh negative factors when evaluating the remaining “extraordinary circumstances” exception: overstaying a visa, working without authorization, violating nonimmigrant status terms, providing false information, misusing parole, or acting inconsistently with the original visa’s purpose.
Consular processing vs. adjustment of status: the operational shift
Before this memo, a worker on an H-1B in San Francisco could file Form I-485 with USCIS, keep working under authorized stay, and wait for adjudication without leaving the US. That process, called adjustment of status, let the applicant maintain employment continuity while USCIS processed the case.
Now, that same worker must depart the US and apply through consular processing at a US embassy or consulate in their country of origin. Consular processing involves a different set of forms, a medical exam conducted abroad, an embassy interview, and waiting for the State Department to schedule and adjudicate the case. Embassy backlogs for employment-based green cards, particularly for applicants from India and China, already stretch into months or years.
The practical consequence: mid-career professionals with established roles at US employers now face relocation to their countries of origin with no guaranteed timeline for return.
The undefined “extraordinary circumstances” exception
The memo preserves a case-by-case exception for “extraordinary circumstances” but provides no definition of what qualifies. USCIS has indicated category-specific guidance may come later, but as of May 24, officers are operating under the new standard without a rubric.
This is the gap that matters most for practitioners. A memo that eliminates a long-standing pathway but leaves its sole exception undefined gives individual officers enormous discretion. Immigration attorneys will likely spend the coming months testing the boundary through individual cases, and the lack of published criteria makes outcomes unpredictable for applicants and employers alike.
Pending I-485 applications: no guidance
USCIS has not explained how already-pending I-485 applications will be treated. For applicants who filed adjustment of status before May 22, the uncertainty is acute: their cases sit in a queue with no clarity on whether the new standard applies retroactively.
The number of affected pending applications is not disclosed in the brief. Immigration attorneys are advising clients to proceed under the assumption that pending cases will face heightened scrutiny under the new “extraordinary circumstances” standard, but this is legal inference, not published policy.
Impact on employers
For companies that sponsor H-1B and L-1 workers, the memo creates an immediate operational problem. The adjustment-of-status path allowed sponsored employees to remain in the US and continue working while their green card cases were processed. Replacing that with consular processing means:
- Relocation costs shift to the employer or the worker, depending on the employment agreement
- Hiring pipeline friction increases, since candidates weighing a US role now face a green card process that requires leaving the country for an indefinite period
- Retention risk rises for workers already in the pipeline who may choose to pursue opportunities elsewhere rather than relocate abroad
DHS reinforced the policy’s framing in a social media post: “An alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply. The era of abusing our nation’s immigration system is over.”
Who bears the sharpest risk
Immigration advocates have raised concerns that the policy extends beyond employment-based applicants. The memo does not carve out exemptions for humanitarian categories; the undefined “extraordinary circumstances” exception is the only available path for applicants in those groups. Legal analysis notes that trafficking survivors, crime victims, refugees, asylees, and special immigrant categories may each face different risks under the new framework.
For employment-based applicants, the risk is economic and logistical. For humanitarian applicants, the undefined exception creates uncertainty about access to protection. The same vague standard is expected to cover both.
Broader enforcement context
This memo does not exist in isolation. In August 2025, DHS proposed a rule that would limit visa durations for students and cultural exchange visitors, though the rule had not been finalized as of May 2026. The May 22 memo is the latest in a series of policy changes that tighten nonimmigrant visa holders’ ability to remain in or transition within the US immigration system, each implemented through executive or agency action rather than legislative change.
Legal challenges are expected. The adjustment-of-status pathway is statutory, and restricting it through agency memo rather than congressional action raises separation-of-powers questions that federal courts will be asked to resolve. Until a court issues a stay or injunction, the policy governs.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many visas has the State Department already revoked under the current administration?
Since Trump took office, the State Department has revoked more than 100,000 visas across student, worker, and visitor categories. The May 22 memo is the latest enforcement action in a sustained campaign, and the cumulative effect means consular posts abroad are already managing elevated caseloads from prior revocations when new green card applicants arrive.
Are abused or neglected children with humanitarian-based green card applications forced to leave too?
The memo does not exempt them. HIAS, a refugee aid organization, has stated that USCIS is forcing survivors of trafficking, abused children, and neglected children to return to the countries they fled to process green card applications. These applicants fall under the same undefined “extraordinary circumstances” exception as employment-based cases, with no separate humanitarian pathway.
Does the memo include any plan for how US consulates will absorb the added green card caseload?
No. The directive shifts applicants to the State Department’s consular processing system but allocates no additional staffing, expedited scheduling, or capacity resources. With 100,000-plus prior visa revocations already straining consular posts, the influx of new green card applicants will compound existing appointment backlogs without any corresponding capacity increase.
If this was done by agency memo rather than legislation, could a future administration reverse it just as easily?
Yes — the same executive authority could rescind the policy with a subsequent USCIS memo. But applicants forced into consular processing during the interim cannot undo that disruption retroactively. A future administration would also inherit whatever case law and judicial precedents emerge from legal challenges filed while the current memo governs.
What should an employer do if an H-1B employee has an approved I-140 but hasn’t filed I-485 yet?
Consult immigration counsel before taking any filing step. With domestic I-485 effectively closed, the employer must choose between initiating consular processing — which requires the employee to depart and potentially remain abroad for months or years — or waiting for legal challenges that could produce an injunction. Consular processing guarantees forward movement but disrupts employment; waiting preserves US work status but leaves the employee in legal uncertainty.