NRI PULSE STAFF REPORT
Key takeaways:
What changed: USCIS has given officers broader discretion over green card applications filed from within the U.S. Officers can treat an applicant’s decision to stay in the country rather than go abroad for consular processing as a negative factor. They can also deny an application for insufficient or missing evidence without first sending a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny, meaning an applicant may lose the chance to correct the problem before a decision is made.
What the lawsuit seeks: The plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to block these policies and ultimately strike them down, arguing that the new rules unfairly raise the risk of denial, including for people whose applications were already pending when the policies changed. The policies remain in effect while the lawsuit moves forward.
Boston, MA, October 7, 2026: A new federal lawsuit is challenging two U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that could make it harder for some immigrants already living and working in the United States to obtain green cards without leaving the country.
The lawsuit, filed October 5 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, targets USCIS policies issued in May and August that change how the agency handles adjustment of status, the process that allows eligible immigrants in the United States to apply for permanent residence without going abroad for consular processing.
The case could have implications for employment-based green card applicants, including foreign professionals, researchers and other workers who have established careers and lives in the United States while waiting for permanent residence.
The May policy directs USCIS officers to treat adjustment of status as an extraordinary form of discretionary relief. USCIS said when announcing the policy that a person temporarily in the United States who wants a green card generally should return to their home country to apply through consular processing, except in extraordinary circumstances. Officers were instructed to consider the circumstances of each case individually.
The lawsuit argues that the policy goes much further than simply reminding officers that adjustment of status is discretionary. According to the plaintiffs, USCIS now treats an applicant’s decision to seek permanent residence from within the United States, rather than leave for consular processing, as a negative factor. The plaintiffs say applicants may have to demonstrate “unusual or even outstanding” positive considerations to overcome that factor.
The policy does not eliminate adjustment of status or prevent eligible employment-based applicants from filing Form I-485. The legal challenge centers instead on how USCIS officers are being instructed to exercise their discretion in deciding those applications.
A second USCIS policy, issued August 5, gives officers broader authority to deny immigration benefit requests without first issuing a Request for Evidence, known as an RFE, or a Notice of Intent to Deny, known as a NOID.
Under the policy, USCIS may deny an application if the applicant fails to establish eligibility or submit required initial evidence, without first giving the applicant another opportunity to provide documentation. USCIS said the change is intended to reduce frivolous or substantially incomplete applications and improve processing efficiency.
The August policy took effect immediately and applies to applications that were already pending as well as those filed on or after August 5.
The plaintiffs argue that the two policies, when applied together, create particular problems for people who submitted adjustment applications before the new standards were announced. They contend that an applicant could be evaluated under the new discretionary framework without necessarily receiving an opportunity to provide additional evidence addressing it.
The lawsuit was brought by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard and Boston University chapters; the Service Employees International Union, SEIU Local 509 and 32BJ SEIU; Americans for Immigrant Justice; and six individual green card applicants.
The groups represent academics, researchers, health care and service workers and other immigrants pursuing permanent residence in the United States. Several of the individual plaintiffs have employment-based green card applications pending.
Among them is Ikechi Obinna Nwaozuzu, a Nigerian national living in Houston who filed an employment-based adjustment application in April 2026. According to the lawsuit, Nwaozuzu is an international student and works as a senior analyst while pursuing his studies. The complaint says requiring him to pursue an immigrant visa through consular processing could disrupt both his education and employment.
Plaintiff Derly Sneit Sierra Palacios, a Colombian national living in Utah with her husband and two U.S.-citizen children, also has an employment-based adjustment application pending. The lawsuit argues that requiring applicants such as Palacios to pursue their cases abroad could result in extended separation from their families.
Another plaintiff, Julieth Melissa Camargo Figueroa, a Colombian national living in North Carolina, filed an employment-based adjustment application in April. The lawsuit says her pending application is also tied to her ability to obtain employment authorization.
The lawsuit alleges that the USCIS policies exceed the agency’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, unlawfully apply new standards to previously filed cases, violate the Administrative Procedure Act and deprive applicants of due process.
The plaintiffs also argue that Congress specifically created adjustment of status as a way for eligible immigrants already in the country to obtain permanent residence without having to leave the United States.
USCIS, however, says the May policy restores what it considers the original intent of immigration law. The agency maintains that adjustment of status is discretionary and that consular processing abroad should ordinarily be used by temporary immigrants seeking permanent residence.
On the August evidence policy, USCIS said applicants are responsible for establishing eligibility and providing required evidence when they file. The agency said giving officers greater authority to deny incomplete or unsupported applications will help prevent “placeholder” filings and allow USCIS to use its resources more efficiently.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the policies and ultimately set them aside. They also want USCIS ordered to adjudicate affected green card applications under what they say is controlling immigration precedent.
The case is American Association of University Professors et al. v. Mullin et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-14527.
As of October 7, the case is in its earliest stages. The lawsuit was filed two days ago, and the court has not ruled on the plaintiffs’ claims or blocked either USCIS policy.
