Lawsuit Challenges New USCIS Green Card Policies on Consular Processing

A federal lawsuit was fled challenging two recent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that they say make it harder for eligible immigrants to obtain green cards while remaining in the United States.

BOSTON — Immigrant families, workers, university educators and advocacy groups have filed a federal lawsuit challenging two recent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that they say make it harder for eligible immigrants to obtain green cards while remaining in the United States.

The lawsuit, filed October 5 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, targets USCIS policies issued in May and August 2026 concerning adjustment of status and the evidence required in immigration benefit applications. The case is American Association of University Professors et al. v. Mullin et al., No. 1:26-cv-14527.

Adjustment of status allows certain eligible immigrants who are already in the United States to apply to become lawful permanent residents without completing the immigrant-visa process at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad.

The plaintiffs contend that the new policies unlawfully change how that process operates and could force some applicants to choose between risking denial of their applications and leaving the United States for consular processing.

The policies remain in effect. No court has yet ruled that they are unlawful or issued an injunction blocking them.

May policy puts greater emphasis on consular processing

The first policy at issue was issued by USCIS on May 21 as Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199. It describes adjustment of status as discretionary and as an “extraordinary” form of relief that allows applicants to avoid the ordinary consular immigrant-visa process.

According to the lawsuit, USCIS now treats an applicant's decision to pursue adjustment of status in the United States instead of leaving for consular processing as a negative factor in the discretionary analysis. The challengers say applicants may consequently need unusually strong favorable factors to overcome that consideration.

That distinction is important: the May memorandum does not simply declare adjustment of status unavailable to otherwise eligible applicants. The dispute centers on how USCIS officers are instructed to exercise discretion when deciding applications.

The plaintiffs argue that the policy conflicts with the adjustment process Congress established and with longstanding legal precedent governing discretionary decisions.

“For decades, people who met the requirements to apply for a green card from inside the United States were able to do so without having that choice count against them,” Leslie Dellon, senior attorney for business immigration at the American Immigration Council, said in announcing the lawsuit.

Dellon called the policy a major change with potentially serious consequences for families, workers, students and researchers, including separation from relatives and lengthy periods outside the United States while awaiting consular processing.

USCIS can deny some cases without first seeking more evidence

The lawsuit also challenges an August 5 USCIS policy governing evidence, Requests for Evidence, commonly known as RFEs, and Notices of Intent to Deny, or NOIDs.

Under the new guidance, USCIS officers have greater discretion to deny immigration benefit requests without first issuing an RFE or NOID when an applicant has failed to demonstrate eligibility or provide required initial evidence.

The August policy is broader than green-card applications alone. It applies generally to USCIS immigration benefit requests pending or filed on or after August 5, unless another regulation or policy provides otherwise. The current lawsuit specifically challenges the policy's consequences for adjustment-of-status applicants.

That retroactive application is one of the challengers' concerns. They argue that people who filed adjustment applications before the new policies were announced could face denial without having anticipated the need to submit evidence addressing the government's newly announced discretionary approach.

Why the case matters to Indian green-card applicants

The lawsuit could be particularly relevant to Indian professionals pursuing employment-based permanent residence in the United States, including people working in technology, medicine, research and higher education.

The litigation is not, however, specific to Indians or H-1B workers, and the policies do not automatically require every adjustment-of-status applicant to leave the United States.

The individual plaintiffs include applicants pursuing both family- and employment-based permanent residence. The organizational plaintiffs say their members and clients include educators, researchers, health care and service workers and other immigrants.

For employment-based applicants already living and working in the United States, being required to pursue immigrant-visa processing overseas can have consequences extending beyond the green-card application itself. The plaintiffs say prolonged periods abroad could interrupt careers, separate families and, in some circumstances, jeopardize sponsored employment.

That makes the litigation relevant to the broader Indian-American professional community, including Telugu professionals navigating the employment-based green-card system. There is no evidence, however, that the challenged policies specifically target Indians or Telugu Americans.

Universities, unions and immigrants among plaintiffs

Plaintiffs include the American Association of University Professors and its chapters at Harvard University and Boston University; the Service Employees International Union; SEIU Local 509; 32BJ SEIU; Americans for Immigrant Justice; and six individual green-card applicants.

They are represented by Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and Colombo & Hurd.

The lawsuit asks the court to block the challenged policies while litigation proceeds and ultimately set them aside. The plaintiffs also want USCIS to adjudicate affected applications under what they contend is controlling legal precedent.

“Congress created a process that allows eligible people who are already living in the United States to pursue permanent residence without uprooting their lives and leaving the country,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said.

“The executive branch cannot rewrite that system and then treat people’s lawful actions as a reason to deny them said permanent residency,” Perryman said.

USCIS, meanwhile, has described its August evidence policy as reinforcing applicants' responsibility to establish eligibility when they file and restoring officers' discretion to deny incomplete or insufficient benefit requests without first seeking additional evidence.

The litigation is now pending in Massachusetts federal court. Until a court blocks or invalidates the policies, both challenged USCIS policies remain in effect.