Overseas.chat

Lawsuit Challenges USCIS Policies: What Remains Unresolved

The case in brief

On October 5, 2026, several labor unions, university faculty groups, a Miami-based legal aid organization, and six individual green card applicants filed a federal lawsuit in Boston against the Department of Homeland Security. The case is American Association of University Professors v. Mullin, No. 1:26-cv-14527 (D. Mass.).

According to the October 7 report, the lawsuit challenges two USCIS policy memoranda issued in 2026 that increased the risks associated with adjusting immigration status from inside the United States.

Adjustment of status, or AOS, is relevant to people already in the United States who seek permanent residence through an I-485 rather than pursuing an immigrant visa through a U.S. consulate. Brown University’s International Student and Scholar Services describes this route as an exceptional alternative to the normal consular process.

PM-602-0199: AOS is framed as extraordinary relief

The USCIS memorandum PM-602-0199, dated May 21, 2026, describes adjustment of status as:

  • Discretionary;
  • A matter of administrative grace;
  • An extraordinary form of relief; and
  • An alternative to ordinary consular visa processing.

The lawsuit summary says a nonimmigrant or parolee who remains in the United States and files an I-485 instead of using a consulate may have that decision considered against them. Under the policy described in the report, the applicant must show what the memorandum calls “unusual or even outstanding equities.” The report also states that having a clean history is not enough.

Some visa categories allow dual intent, including H-1B and L-1, and can support processing through adjustment of status. The supplied excerpts do not indicate that holding a dual-intent category guarantees approval.

Brown University’s summary provides an important qualification: PM-602-0199 does not impose new regulatory restrictions preventing eligible people in the United States from pursuing permanent residence through AOS. Instead, it directs adjudicators to exercise discretion when evaluating applications.

In practical terms, the policy distinguishes between remaining eligible to apply and receiving approval. The memorandum characterizes approval as exceptional and discretionary, while the university says eligible applicants may still pursue this route.

PM-602-0194 is no longer in effect

Another policy memorandum included in the supplied sources is PM-602-0194, dated January 1, 2026. Its subject was the hold and review of pending asylum applications and benefit applications filed by people from additional countries designated as high risk. The memorandum described adjudicative holds, comprehensive review, and case-by-case assessment of benefit requests.

However, the official USCIS copy supplied for this article begins with an explicit notice:

This memorandum is no longer in effect due to court orders.

The provided materials do not include those court orders or explain their reasoning, scope, or interaction with the Boston lawsuit. They do make the memorandum’s status clear: the supplied USCIS document should not be presented as a currently operative policy.

A separate change affects evidence and case review

The sources also include a separate USCIS policy alert, PA-2026-05, dated August 5, 2026. It updates policy guidance concerning evidentiary standards, Requests for Evidence, or RFEs, and Notices of Intent to Deny, or NOIDs.

The alert says USCIS officers may deny certain benefit requests without first issuing an RFE or NOID in various circumstances. When initial evidence is missing, an officer may deny the request for lack of initial evidence or ineligibility, or issue an RFE for the missing evidence.

The supplied excerpts do not identify PA-2026-05 as one of the two memoranda challenged in the lawsuit. Its relevance is nevertheless clear: approval does not necessarily depend on receiving an RFE before a denial, and the August guidance preserves substantial officer discretion.

What remains unresolved

Several important questions are not answered by the supplied public excerpts:

  1. The outcome of the Boston lawsuit is not included. No merits ruling, final judgment, or complete judicial disposition appears in the source set.

  2. The legal fate of PM-602-0199 remains unclear. The excerpts contain no court order invalidating, suspending, or otherwise modifying that memorandum.

  3. The practical meaning of the AOS policy remains case-specific. The memorandum describes extraordinary relief and unusually strong equities, while Brown reports that the policy creates no new regulatory barrier to eligible applicants.

  4. The relationship between the adjustment policy and the August evidence guidance is not explained. The sources do not show how PM-602-0199 and PA-2026-05 operate together in individual cases.

  5. The court orders that ended PM-602-0194 are not provided. Their reasoning therefore cannot be evaluated from these excerpts.

What applicants should take from the current record

The October 7 lawsuit report states that the case does not presently affect a pending application and advises people with a pending or planned I-485 to monitor it closely. That makes PM-602-0199 the principal unresolved issue in the supplied material.

At the same time, PM-602-0199 should not be described as a categorical ban on adjustment of status. Brown’s account says eligible individuals may still pursue AOS, although approval is discretionary and the policy sets a demanding interpretive frame. The separate August evidence alert also means applicants should not assume that an RFE will always precede a denial.

For people considering relocation for work, family, or retirement, the first distinction is whether the proposed route involves adjustment of status from inside the United States or consular processing. The supplied sources do not address category-specific eligibility for every type of relocation, including retirement-related moves.

Bottom line

PM-602-0194 is no longer in effect according to USCIS. PM-602-0199 presents a different problem: it describes adjustment of status as extraordinary, discretionary administrative grace, but the sources say it does not add new regulatory restrictions. Its future under the Boston lawsuit—and the exact effect of these policies on individual applicants—cannot be resolved from the supplied excerpts.

Sources

  • International Legal and Business Services Group: Lawsuit Challenging USCIS Green Card Policies Filed
  • USCIS PM-602-0194: Hold and Review of USCIS Benefit Applications
  • Brown University ISSS: USCIS Issues Policy Memo on Adjustment of Status