USCIS’s New Adjustment of Status Memo Does Not Change Federal Immigration Law

This week, USCIS issued a new memorandum regarding adjustment of status adjudications, and almost immediately social media filled with claims that adjustment of status is effectively over.

That is not true.

The memo attempts to frame adjustment of status as relief that should only be granted in “extraordinary circumstances.” The legal problem is that Congress never wrote the statute that way.

Adjustment of status exists because Congress created it under INA § 245(a), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The statute specifically allows certain individuals who were inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States to apply for lawful permanent residence from inside the country if they are otherwise eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible to the United States.

Congress also created extensive statutory restrictions and exceptions governing adjustment eligibility. INA § 245(c) identifies categories of individuals barred from adjustment. INA § 245(k) provides protections for certain employment-based applicants despite limited periods of unauthorized employment or status violations. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are treated differently than many other categories. Humanitarian classifications have their own adjustment provisions entirely.

That framework matters because Congress already decided who can adjust, who cannot, and when exceptions apply.

USCIS does possess discretionary authority when adjudicating adjustment applications. However, discretion is not the same thing as unlimited authority. An agency may weigh facts within an individual case; it cannot create entirely new eligibility standards through internal policy memoranda.

If Congress wanted adjustment of status to require “extraordinary circumstances,” it knew how to write that language into the statute. Immigration law contains numerous provisions using heightened standards like exceptional hardship or extraordinary circumstances. INA § 245(a) does not contain that language.

That is why this memo is legally vulnerable.

Federal agencies are permitted to interpret statutes, but they are not permitted to rewrite them based upon policy preferences. USCIS cannot effectively transform adjustment of status from a statutory immigration mechanism into a rare form of discretionary relief simply because the administration prefers more restrictive outcomes.

At the same time, people should not ignore what this memo likely means in practice. Officers may approach adjustment applications more aggressively. Cases involving unlawful presence, unauthorized employment, criminal history, prior denials, status violations, or other discretionary concerns may face heavier scrutiny. Requests for evidence, interviews, and discretionary denials may increase.

In other words, strategy matters now more than ever.

That does not mean adjustment of status is dead. Congress did not repeal adjustment eligibility, and a USCIS memo does not suddenly erase decades of federal immigration law. What it does mean is that immigration filings can no longer be approached casually, especially in difficult or discretionary cases.

We also fully expect litigation over this policy. Courts have repeatedly rejected attempts by administrative agencies to impose substantive immigration restrictions untethered from statutory language enacted by Congress. Whether this memo ultimately survives judicial review remains to be seen, but the underlying legal issue is straightforward: agencies do not have authority to override statutes through policy guidance.

The takeaway here should not be panic. It should be preparation.

People considering adjustment of status should obtain individualized legal advice, understand the strengths and weaknesses of their case, and develop an actual strategy instead of relying on internet rumors or generalized fear.

At Katsivalis & Anderson Law, we will continue doing exactly what we have always done: advising clients honestly, preparing cases strategically, and fighting back when the government attempts to push beyond the limits of the law.