Lawsuit Challenges USCIS Adjustment of Status Green Card Policy

• A coalition of labor, higher education and immigration advocacy organizations has filed a lawsuit challenging recent USCIS policies that make it more difficult for eligible foreign nationals to obtain green cards through Adjustment of Status (AOS) from within the U.S.

Lawsuit on Adjustment of Status Green Card Policy

Several organizations and individual plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over two policies introduced in 2026 that affect green card adjudications. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Americans for Immigrant Justice and individual plaintiffs.  

The plaintiffs contend the policies undermine the longstanding Adjustment of Status (AOS) process, which allows many eligible foreign nationals to apply for lawful permanent residence without leaving the U.S. According to the complaint, approximately 57% of individuals who obtained lawful permanent residence in FY 2024 did so through Adjustment of Status.  

Initial USCIS Adjustment of Status Policy 

In May 2026, USCIS issued a policy memorandum directing officers to treat AOS as an extraordinary form of discretionary relief rather than a routine pathway to permanent residence. The policy instructs adjudicators to view an applicant’s decision to pursue permanent residence from within the U.S. instead of through consular processing abroad as a negative factor when exercising discretion.  

According to the lawsuit, applicants may now need to demonstrate significant positive factors to overcome the policy’s presumption that consular processing should be the preferred route where available.  

USCIS Evidence and Denial Policy 

In August 2026, USCIS issued a second policy allowing officers to deny certain applications without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). Plaintiffs argue this policy could prevent applicants from submitting additional evidence to address the new discretionary standards imposed by the AOS policy.  

Why Employers Are Paying Attention 

The lawsuit highlights potential consequences for employers sponsoring foreign national talent through employment-based immigration programs. 

According to the complaint, foreign nationals who are unable to complete AOS in the U.S. may be required to depart the country and pursue immigrant visa processing at a U.S. consulate abroad. Depending on visa processing timelines, administrative delays or country-specific restrictions, this could result in extended disruptions to employment and workforce planning.  

Employers could face: 

• Delays in employment-based green card cases.  
• Workforce disruptions if sponsored employees must leave the U.S. during processing.  
• Challenges retaining foreign national talent.  
• Increased uncertainty around long-term workforce planning and mobility programs.  

The lawsuit includes examples involving physicians, researchers, professors and other highly skilled workers who could face career interruptions if required to pursue consular processing abroad.

Background 

This lawsuit follows a series of immigration policy changes affecting green card applicants and employers sponsoring foreign national workers. 

The challenged May 2026 policy characterizes AOS as an exceptional form of relief and directs officers to weigh the availability of consular processing when adjudicating green card applications. The August 2026 policy further changed adjudication procedures by expanding USCIS authority to deny applications without first requesting additional evidence from applicants. Plaintiffs argue that, taken together, these policies make it more difficult for otherwise eligible applicants to obtain permanent residence from within the U.S.  

The complaint also notes that employers increasingly rely on AOS to maintain workforce continuity while employees pursue permanent residence. Unlike consular processing, AOS generally allows applicants to remain in the U.S. and continue working while their green card applications are adjudicated. Plaintiffs argue that requiring more applicants to pursue immigrant visa processing abroad could create additional operational challenges for employers and increase uncertainty for foreign national employees.  

Key Arguments in the Lawsuit 

The plaintiffs contend that the policies: 

• Conflict with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  
• Exceed USCIS’s statutory authority.  
• Were implemented without notice-and-comment rulemaking.  
• Are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  
• Improperly apply new standards to applications that were already pending when the policies were issued.  

What Happens Next? 

The plaintiffs are asking the court to: 

• Block implementation of both policies.  
• Vacate the policies.  
• Prevent the policies from being applied to pending AOS applications.  
• Require USCIS to adjudicate applications under prior standards and established agency precedent. 

Don’t Miss an Update

At Envoy Global, we combine smart, friendly legal teams with smart, friendly technology to facilitate immigration for companies and the global talent they depend on. Our holistic, proactive immigration services are built for accuracy and efficiency, always putting people first.

Reach out today to learn how we can support your company’s immigration needs.