Coalition Sues to Block USCIS Adjustment of Status Policies

What Happened

A coalition of labor unions, university faculty groups, a legal aid organization, and six individual green card applicants filed a <a href="https://www.fragomen.com/insights/united-states-lawsuit-seeks-to-enjoin-recent-uscis-policies-affecting-adjustment-of-status-applicants.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal lawsuit</a> on October 5, 2026, challenging two U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies that make the adjustment of status process more difficult. The case — <em>American Association of University Professors, et al. v. Markwayne Mullin, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.</em>, Case 1:26-cv-14527 — is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs include the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard Faculty and Boston University chapters; the Service Employees International Union and two affiliates, SEIU Local 509 and 32BJ SEIU; the Miami-based nonprofit Americans for Immigrant Justice; and six individual applicants for lawful permanent residence. The organizations represent or serve academics, doctors, researchers, service workers, and other immigrants seeking green cards, as well as their close relatives.

The complaint targets two policies USCIS issued in 2026. First, a <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-602-0199-AdjustmentOfStatusAndDiscretion-20260521.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">May 21 policy memorandum</a> (PM 602-0199) that treats in-U.S. adjustment of status as an "extraordinary" form of discretionary relief and directs officers to consider an applicant's choice to adjust status rather than consular process abroad as a negative factor. Second, an <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20260805-EvidentiaryStandards.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">August 5 Policy Alert</a> that gives officers discretion to deny benefit requests without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). Both policies took effect immediately and apply retroactively to applications already pending with the agency.

Who Is Affected

Adjustment of status is the main pathway to a green card for employment-based applicants already in the United States — including H-1B and O-1 holders filing I-485 applications based on approved EB-1, EB-2 (including NIW), or EB-3 petitions. Under the challenged policies, those I-485 filers now face two compounding risks: the choice to adjust status in the U.S. counts against them at the discretion stage, and officers can deny an application without giving the applicant any chance to fix an evidentiary gap.

The retroactive application of the August evidentiary policy creates a particular problem for applicants who filed before the May memo took effect: they had no reason to submit evidence addressing the new 'extraordinary relief' standard, yet could now face denial without an opportunity to respond to it.

The stakes are large. In fiscal year 2024, 782,800 of roughly 1.36 million people who became lawful permanent residents — about 57 percent — did so through adjustment of status, according to DHS figures cited in the complaint.

What Attorneys Should Know

The complaint argues that the two policies together violate the Administrative Procedure Act — both for bypassing notice-and-comment requirements and for being arbitrary and capricious and in excess of statutory authority — and that they violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction blocking the policies while litigation proceeds, plus a permanent order vacating them.

The May policy represents a significant departure from decades of USCIS practice, which did not treat consular processing as the standard green card pathway relative to adjustment of status. The <a href="https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/litigation/challenge-uscis-adjustment-policy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">American Immigration Council</a>, which is affiliated with the litigation, characterizes the memo as requiring eligible applicants to depart the United States and consular process "or risk denial of their USCIS-filed adjustment of status application."

USCIS has signaled it will fight the case. Agency spokesman Zach Kahler told <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/uscis-hit-with-lawsuit-over-green-card-changes-12533905" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Newsweek</a> the lawsuit is "yet another frivolous attempt to disrupt the Trump administration's commitment to enforce our country's immigration laws as intended by Congress," adding that USCIS "will continue to faithfully apply long-standing immigration law and prior immigration court decisions."

The district court will first take up the request for preliminary relief. If granted, USCIS implementation of both policies would pause while the case continues — but prospects are uncertain, and the policies remain binding on adjudicators until a court says otherwise.

What Applicants Should Do

• Do not delay filing decisions on the assumption that the lawsuit will succeed. Both policies remain fully in effect, and I-485s filed today are adjudicated under the stricter discretionary and evidentiary standards.
• File complete. Under the August 5 policy, an officer can deny without an RFE if required initial evidence is missing or eligibility is not apparent on the face of the record. Treat every I-485 as if there will be no second chance to submit evidence.
• For pending I-485s filed before late May 2026, consider proactively submitting evidence addressing the new 'extraordinary relief' discretionary standard — the officer is not required to ask for it.
• Watch for the court's ruling on the preliminary injunction motion, which could come quickly. An injunction would restore the prior adjudication framework at least temporarily.
• Document the harms of consular processing for your specific case (employment continuity, family separation, travel risks) in the record, since the complaint centers on those injuries.