A coalition of organizations and applicants has asked a federal court in Massachusetts to block two memoranda that plaintiffs say make it harder to obtain a green card from within the United States.
A coalition of university, labor and immigrant-rights groups, along with individual applicants, has sued the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in federal court in Massachusetts over two recent agency policies. The plaintiffs say the agency expanded grounds for denying applications to adjust immigration status and failed to follow required rulemaking procedures.
One memorandum, issued May 21 as PM-602-0199, directs officers to treat adjustment of status from within the United States as an extraordinary measure and, in some cases, as a negative discretionary factor. The lawsuit says the policy could push applicants toward consular processing abroad. It sets out separate considerations for some categories, including holders of dual-intent visas, refugees and people granted asylum.
The second policy, PA-2026-05, was published on Aug. 5. It allows USCIS to deny some applications without first issuing a request for evidence or a notice of intent to deny. The plaintiffs also challenge applying the criteria to cases that were already pending when the new guidance took effect.
The complaint alleges that USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security exceeded the authority Congress granted under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The coalition argues that the changes should have gone through notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. It is asking the court to declare the memoranda unlawful, suspend them while the case proceeds and ultimately set them aside.
The applicants say requiring people to leave the United States to complete the process could separate families, cost some people their jobs and delay their return because of consular procedures and re-entry restrictions. The groups potentially affected include spouses and parents of U.S. citizens, beneficiaries of immigration programs, doctors, teachers, engineers and researchers. The court has not ruled on the merits of the case.