A federal lawsuit filed on October 5, 2026, challenges two USCIS policies that could make it harder for some immigrants to obtain green cards through adjustment of status—the process of applying for permanent residence without leaving the United States.
The case is particularly relevant to international students and professionals because the plaintiffs include F-1 students using CPT, H-1B university employees, and employment-based green card applicants. However, the lawsuit does not directly challenge CPT, Day 1 CPT, OPT, or H-1B rules. Its focus is how USCIS decides Form I-485 adjustment applications. (americanimmigrationcouncil.org)
The lawsuit, American Association of University Professors et al. v. Mullin et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It challenges two USCIS policies issued in May and August 2026. (dockets.justia.com)
On May 21, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, which describes adjustment of status as an extraordinary, discretionary departure from the regular consular visa process.
Under the policy, USCIS officers may treat an applicant’s decision to pursue permanent residence inside the United States instead of applying for an immigrant visa abroad as a negative discretionary factor. The memo directs officers to consider whether the applicant has “unusual or even outstanding” positive factors that justify approving adjustment of status.
The memo recognizes limited exceptions, including certain dual-intent classifications and immigrant categories in which adjustment is the available path to permanent residence. However, it also states that maintaining lawful status in a dual-intent category is not, by itself, enough to guarantee a favorable exercise of discretion. (americanimmigrationcouncil.org)
The second policy, issued on August 5, gives USCIS officers greater discretion to deny an immigration application without first sending a Request for Evidence, or RFE, or a Notice of Intent to Deny, known as a NOID.
According to the policy, an officer may deny a case when required initial evidence is missing or when the submitted evidence does not establish eligibility. It applies to applications that were already pending on August 5 as well as newly filed cases. (americanimmigrationcouncil.org)
The plaintiffs argue that the two policies are especially harmful when applied together: USCIS may evaluate an older I-485 under the new discretionary standard and deny it without first giving the applicant an opportunity to submit evidence addressing that standard.
The lawsuit provides concrete examples of how the policies may affect international students transitioning to permanent residence.
One named plaintiff is an F-1 student working as a senior analyst through CPT while an employment-based immigrant petition and Form I-485 remain pending. Another named plaintiff maintains F-1 status while awaiting a decision on an employment-based adjustment application. The complaint also describes a doctoral student completing clinical training through CPT who is reconsidering future U.S. career plans because of the new policy. (americanimmigrationcouncil.org)
This does not mean that CPT or Day 1 CPT participation automatically creates an adjustment-of-status problem. The challenged policy concerns USCIS’s discretionary review of the applicant’s overall green card case, including immigration history and the decision to adjust status rather than use consular processing.
F-1 students with pending or planned I-485 applications may nevertheless need to pay closer attention to:
An I-485 denial does not have identical consequences for every applicant. The effect depends on the person’s underlying immigration status, employment authorization, travel history, and individual case facts.
Although H-1B is a dual-intent classification, H-1B workers are not necessarily outside the policy’s reach.
The complaint describes university professors and researchers in H-1B status who are pursuing or preparing to pursue employment-based permanent residence. The plaintiffs argue that forcing these workers to use consular processing could interrupt teaching, research, patient care, and employer-sponsored career plans. (americanimmigrationcouncil.org)
For workers facing long employment-based green card backlogs, the possibility of having to complete immigrant visa processing abroad may create additional uncertainty. Consular processing requires the applicant to leave the United States, and administrative processing or other delays can make the return timeline difficult to predict.
The plaintiffs claim that the policies exceed USCIS’s statutory authority, conflict with federal immigration law and prior agency precedent, were issued without required notice-and-comment procedures, apply new standards improperly to pending cases, and violate due process.
They are asking the court to temporarily block the policies while the litigation continues and ultimately set them aside. They also want USCIS to adjudicate affected adjustment applications under controlling Board of Immigration Appeals precedent. (americanimmigrationcouncil.org)
USCIS has rejected the allegations and maintains that it is applying existing immigration law and prior decisions appropriately. The court has not yet decided which side is correct.
As of October 10, 2026, no publicly reported court order had suspended either policy. Filing the lawsuit did not automatically stop USCIS from applying them. (clearinghouse.net)
Applicants should therefore continue preparing cases under the policies currently in effect. Anyone considering adjustment of status, consular processing, international travel, or a major status change should review the individual risks with a qualified immigration attorney rather than assuming the lawsuit protects a pending application.