🇺🇸▼
Each year, more than half a million individuals utilize a specific procedural pathway to apply for a green card while residing within the United States. A green card serves as the official government identification that grants an immigrant the permanent right to live and work in the country. However, a new policy memorandum issued in May 2026 threatens to fundamentally alter this long-standing administrative procedure. This draft policy potentially denies immigrants the opportunity to apply for their green cards while they are already physically present in the U.S. Instead, the proposed rules would force them to return to their countries of origin to complete the application process. To comprehend the profound significance of this potential change, it is helpful to examine a specific, representative example.
Consider the situation of a British woman named Lucy. She travels to the United States on a student visa with the primary objective of earning her Ph.D. at Ohio State University. While she is engaged in her academic studies, she falls in love with Mike, an American engineer. The two decide to marry. Under the current system, which has been operative for decades, Lucy possesses the legal right to apply for her green card directly from Ohio. She does not need to leave her home or uproot her life to secure her status. The new policy memorandum, however, could force families like hers to make incredibly difficult and complex choices. It might require one member of the couple to leave the country with no guarantee that they would be permitted to return in the future.
As law professors who specialize in the study of immigration procedures, we view this proposed shift as a significant and troubling departure from how the system has historically functioned. Congress created a specific legal pathway known as "adjustment of status." This process allows individuals to transition from one immigration status to another, such as moving from a student status to that of a permanent resident. This pathway to permanent residency is deeply embedded within the broader immigration legal framework. A simple policy memorandum issued by the executive branch does not possess the authority to cut off this established avenue. The memo does not have the legal power to override laws that have been passed by Congress.
Instead, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would require direct action from Congress to be valid. Alternatively, the agency would need to follow proper rule-making procedures, which include mandatory public comment periods and rigorous legal reviews. The hundreds of thousands of people who meet the legal requirements for adjustment of status every year cannot have their rights removed arbitrarily. The proposed rule bypasses these necessary legal steps entirely.
The scale of this potential disruption is vast. In fiscal year 2023, approximately 608,260 out of 1.17 million new lawful permanent residents received their green cards from within the United States. This figure represents about 54% of all new green cards issued during that period. The new draft policy emphasizes that people who entered the U.S. as nonimmigrants are generally expected to pursue an immigrant visa from outside the country if they desire to stay permanently. Nonimmigrants include individuals on student visas who originally stated they would leave the country once their education was finished.
Applying from within the United States, as Lucy sought to do, would now be viewed by officials as a negative factor. It would be treated as a strike against granting the green card. To succeed, applicants would need to provide extraordinary counterevidence. This could include proof of strong family ties, significant hardship, or a long length of residence in the U.S. The memo calls application from within the U.S. a "red flag." It suggests that such applications are an "attempt to avoid the ordinary consular immigrant visa process." This implies that the immigrant hid their intention to immigrate when they first obtained their nonimmigrant visa.
If this memo becomes official policy, individuals like Lucy would be expected to return to their country, in her case the U.K., to apply for her green card. This process could take a substantial amount of time. Lucy would need to interrupt her studies. Her university might not allow her to leave to complete her degree. Her husband, Mike, would face a terrible choice. He could remain in Ohio and be geographically separated from his spouse indefinitely. Or he could disrupt his own career and move with her, risking his job with an employer who may not let him return. The family would face even more disruption if they had children.
Even if the application process proceeds smoothly, it can take over a year from the initial submission to receiving the physical card. Spending over a year in a home country while waiting for the application to be resolved constitutes a massive disruption. The policy memorandum justifies this strict requirement by stating that seeking a green card from inside the U.S. is based on a desire to evade the normal immigrant visa process. The memo claims this is "usually accompanied by their violation of our immigration laws."
In other words, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services believes that certain people applying from inside the country are trying to cheat the system. The agency suggests that people who came here on temporary visas were secretly planning to stay. However, the agency provides no support in the policy memorandum for this claim. It offers no evidence that most individuals who shift from temporary to permanent status have done anything illegal.
To the contrary, the document acknowledges that adjustment of status can only be used by individuals who have been either inspected and admitted or inspected and paroled. Both of these are lawful processes. The memo gives no evidence for the accusation that most such individuals have committed illegal acts since their entry. The memo also implies that all applicants for green cards who previously held nonimmigrant visas should expect greater scrutiny. This group includes students, tourists, performing artists, athletes, and diplomats. It treats the move from temporary to permanent status as highly unusual.
This view is incorrect. Over half a million people a year have routinely benefited from such transitions. A substantial number of these applicants would now be treated with greater suspicion regarding their original intentions. They would likely need to take on tremendous burdens. They would spend months or even years separated from a spouse or children while waiting abroad. They would have to interrupt or abandon a degree, a job, or a career. They would also gamble on whether they will be allowed back into the U.S. at all. Consular processing abroad carries the risk of a denial with no easy appeal.
The largest group that may still be able to apply from within the U.S. consists of people who came on temporary work visas. However, even they will likely face a tougher process and longer processing times than in the past. Many questions have been raised about the legality of this new policy, especially if it were to change how pending applications are treated. Some analysts argue that Congress did not intend to make the shift to immigrant status "extraordinary" and rare, as the memo claims.
Commentators, including former Department of Homeland Security officials, have stated that the real goal may be to discourage immigration rather than to effect direct policy changes. One immigration attorney wrote that these policies send a clear anti-immigrant message intended to intimidate and drive undocumented immigrants to self-deport. Another immigration lawyer called the memo legally "bonkers" and its text an "incoherent word salad."
Despite the uncertainty, a number of immigration law firms are encouraging people to continue applying for adjustment of status as they had been before. They are also cautioning applicants to ensure that their social media activity does not include any actions or statements that could be deemed problematic by the U.S. government. If the administration’s goal was to put immigrants on pins and needles, that has likely already been accomplished.