USCIS Policies Challenged in Federal Lawsuit Over Green Card Applications

A group of immigrant families, workers, educators, and advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit on October 5, 2026. They are challenging two recent policies from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that affect individuals applying for green cards from within the United States. The lawsuit claims these new rules make it more difficult for eligible immigrants to obtain permanent residency while remaining in the country.

The core of the dispute lies in how USCIS officers now review applications for adjustment of status, the process for immigrants already in the U.S. to become permanent residents. This process is typically used by both employment-based and family-based applicants who file Form I-485. The plaintiffs argue that these policies, issued in May and August 2026, represent a significant departure from previous practices and could lead to more denials, family separations, and disruptions to people’s work and education.

New Policies Alter Discretionary Review and Evidence Handling

The lawsuit specifically targets two USCIS policies. The first, issued on May 21, 2026, instructs immigration officers to consider an applicant’s decision to apply for a green card from within the U.S. as a negative factor in their discretionary review. This means applicants might need to present exceptionally strong reasons, described as “unusual or even outstanding” equities, to get their cases approved. The plaintiffs contend this approach undermines the purpose of the adjustment of status process, which was designed to allow eligible immigrants to stay in the country. They argue it could pressure individuals to leave their families and jobs to apply for a visa from another country.

The second policy, dated August 5, 2026, changes how officers handle evidence in pending green card applications. Under certain conditions, this guidance allows officers to deny an application without first sending a Request for Evidence (RFE) or a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). Typically, these notices give applicants a chance to respond to concerns or provide missing documents. The complaint suggests this August policy might apply to applications filed before it was issued, raising concerns about retroactive application and whether applicants will have a fair opportunity to address any perceived issues in their cases.

Impact on Applicants and Families

The plaintiffs argue that these policies favor processing green card applications from outside the U.S. and increase the likelihood of denials without a chance for applicants to correct problems. They believe these outcomes could lead to families being separated and cause significant disruptions to employment, education, and daily life for immigrants. Applicants who meet the basic eligibility requirements but still need favorable discretion from an officer face particular uncertainty. This could result in long waits for appointments abroad and interruptions to their lives in the United States.

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, stated that Congress created a pathway for eligible immigrants to seek permanent residency without uprooting their lives. Matthew Dellon, an attorney involved in the lawsuit, described the policies as a “major shift with very real consequences,” including family separation, job disruptions, and extended waits for consular appointments. The plaintiffs are seeking court orders to block these policies and require USCIS to decide pending cases under the earlier, established standards.

Legal Challenge and Current Status

The lawsuit, American Association of University Professors et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs include organizations like the American Association of University Professors, the Service Employees International Union, and Americans for Immigrant Justice, along with six individual applicants. As of October 7, 2026, the case is ongoing, and neither policy has been found unlawful by a court. The challenged guidance remains in effect while the legal proceedings continue, placing the agency’s discretionary review and evidence procedures under judicial scrutiny.

Frequently Asked Questions