USCIS has not published a standalone three-year continuous residence rule for all green card applicants, despite an October 27 report describing a new test for people with Temporary Protected Status or DACA. The documented three-year requirement applies to a specific group: U nonimmigrants seeking permanent residence.
The report described the alleged test as requiring three years of continuous physical presence before certain applicants could seek a green card or naturalization. It also characterized the policy as an extension of how time in TPS or DACA had previously been treated. As of October 28, 2026, the agency has not published a single rule matching that description across applicant categories.
A separate USCIS memo does direct officers to scrutinize adjustment applications more closely. And U-based applicants face a statutory residence test. Those policies have different scopes.
The May memo calls for closer review, not a new three-year test
On May 21, 2026, the agency issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199. The memo says adjustment under INA §245 is discretionary and directs officers to apply heightened scrutiny. It does not establish a new three-year residence requirement.
The memo frames adjustment as extraordinary relief that allows applicants to bypass the ordinary immigrant visa process. It says consular processing should be the norm and tells officers to weigh the totality of the circumstances. Officers must explain in a denial notice how positive and negative factors weighed in the decision.
The memo identifies prior immigration violations, fraud or false testimony, and conduct inconsistent with a person’s status as relevant negative factors. It also tells officers to consider whether an application for admission or parole violated the laws and policies in effect at the time, whether the applicant maintained lawful status, and whether the person followed the conditions of admission, including any requirement to depart.
Positive factors include dual-intent status such as H or L, steady employment and tax payment, an employer’s reliance on the applicant’s skills, good moral character, community involvement, and long-term residence and family ties. The assessment accompanying the memo says its enforcement level remains unknown and anticipates clarification and litigation challenging it. The memorandum supplies no new universal three-year test.
U applicants face a distinct statutory three-year clock
Section 245(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows U nonimmigrants to seek adjustment to lawful permanent residence after continuous physical presence for three years from admission in U status. They must also show that continued presence is justified on humanitarian grounds, to ensure family unity, or because it serves the public interest.
Guidance published October 13, 2026, says the clock begins on the date the person was admitted in, or granted, U status, as shown on Form I-797 and Form I-94. A derivative family member who enters the United States later from abroad has a later start date of their own.
Time spent waiting for a decision on Form I-918 does not count. Neither does time under a bona fide determination, deferred action, or a waiting-list work permit. The travel limits are specific: one trip abroad lasting more than 90 days, or multiple trips totaling more than 180 days, breaks continuous presence unless the certifying official certifies the absence.
U status can last up to four years, creating a filing period after the third anniversary of admission and before status expires. The guidance says U-based adjustment filings are fee-exempt under 8 CFR § 106.3. Once an application is pending, the statute extends U status until the agency decides the case.
The guidance recommends checking the admission date and accounting for every trip abroad. Applicants can document continued cooperation with law enforcement through a newly signed Form I-918 Supplement B, described as the strongest proof, or a detailed affidavit as a substitute. They are also advised to build evidence supporting the humanitarian, family-unity or public-interest basis for adjustment.
An appeal asked USCIS to assess another adjustment category
A March 24, 2026, decision by the Administrative Appeals Office addressed whether a U-status applicant could seek adjustment under a different provision. In In Re: 40743043, the service center had denied his Form I-485, saying the record did not establish three years of continuous physical presence.
The applicant argued that he qualified under section 245(a) as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, rather than under the U-specific section 245(m). His mother filed a VAWA petition, Form I-360, with him as a derivative in March 2015, then filed a U petition, Form I-918, in August 2015. The VAWA petition was approved in November 2015, and the U petitions were approved in October 2020.
He entered on a U-3 visa in May 2022. His mother’s VAWA adjustment was approved in June 2022, and he applied to adjust in May 2023 as a derivative VAWA applicant. His Form I-797 identified the category as “VAWA Self-Petitioner”; Form I-485 listed a family-based category, “VAWA Self-Petitioner, Form I-130.”
The appeals office withdrew the service center decision and remanded the case for a new decision. It directed the center to consider his eligibility under section 245(a) as an immediate relative. The case turned on the adjustment category being considered, not on a newly announced residence standard for every applicant.
Some officers are reviewing records decades old
A law firm account dated August 26, 2026, describes officers looking beyond the older review period for naturalization applicants. The account says the former practice used a three-to-five-year lookback for continuous residence and good moral character, while officers are now examining full immigration histories, sometimes reaching back decades. It says the approach also affects green card applications and other filings.
The government’s position, as described in the account, is that officers have long had authority to review those records and are now exercising it more actively. Areas examined can include prior marriages that supported an earlier petition, denied or abandoned applications, travel history, entries under another name, and criminal history outside the former window.
One naturalization interview focused on events 30 years old, including a prior marriage to the applicant’s original green card sponsor, to assess whether fraud had been involved in obtaining the initial status. Practitioners advise applicants to review their records before filing, identify status lapses, unauthorized employment or misrepresentations, and document favorable factors. U-based applicants are also advised to confirm their admission date, review each trip, document cooperation with law enforcement and file Form I-485 within the applicable window.
