- A coalition filed a federal lawsuit on October 5, 2026, challenging two USCIS green card policies.
- The policies affect adjustment of status applicants and address discretionary review and evidence in pending cases.
- As of October 7, 2026, both policies remain in effect while the case proceeds.
A coalition of immigrant families, workers, educators, unions and advocacy groups filed suit October 5, 2026, challenging two USCIS policies affecting people seeking green cards from inside the United States. The case says the rules make it harder for eligible applicants to remain in the country while pursuing permanent residence.
The complaint, 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. It names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as defendants.
Free toolCSPA Age-Out Calculator Online
The dispute concerns adjustment of status, the process through which qualifying immigrants already in the country apply for permanent residence rather than seek an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad. The lawsuit covers employment-based and family-based applicants, generally filing Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
The plaintiffs challenge guidance issued in May and August. They argue the policies depart from established practice and could bring denials, family separation and disruption to work or education.
The May and August policies change how officers review applications
The first challenged policy, issued May 21, 2026, instructs officers to weigh an applicant’s choice to apply from within the United States as a negative discretionary factor, according to the complaint. The alternative is consular processing abroad.
That approach could require applicants to present unusually strong reasons for an officer to approve their cases. The complaint says they may have to establish “unusual or even outstanding” equities to counter the negative factor.
The plaintiffs say the policy reverses the purpose of a process Congress created for eligible immigrants living in the United States. They argue the approach can pressure applicants to leave their families, jobs and communities to pursue a visa abroad.
A second policy, issued August 5, 2026, addresses evidence in pending applications. In certain circumstances, it allows officers to deny an application without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), the lawsuit says.
Those notices can give applicants an opportunity to answer concerns or provide additional material. The complaint argues the August guidance may reach applications filed before it took effect, raising concerns about retroactive application and whether applicants can respond to perceived gaps in their cases.
The policies do not themselves remove statutory eligibility for permanent residence. The dispute instead centers on how officers exercise discretion and handle evidence during adjudication.
Universities, a union and six applicants joined the challenge
The organizational plaintiffs include the American Association of University Professors and its chapters at Harvard University and Boston University, along with the Service Employees International Union and two of its affiliates. Americans for Immigrant Justice also joined the case.
Six individual applicants are plaintiffs as well. The coalition brings together immigrant families, workers and educators, while the federal department and agency are the defendants.
The complaint asks the court to block the policies and set them aside. It also seeks an order barring their use in pending cases and requiring the agency to decide applications under earlier standards and controlling precedent.
Plaintiffs say the rules could push applicants overseas
The plaintiffs argue that the policies favor consular processing over applications made inside the country and heighten the risk of denials without a chance to address missing or disputed evidence. They say those outcomes could separate families and disrupt employment, education and residence in the United States.
Applicants whose eligibility is established but whose cases still require favorable discretion could face particular uncertainty, the complaint argues. The effects could include lengthy waits outside the country for consular appointments, as well as interruptions to work and family life.
Skye Perryman, president and chief executive officer of Democracy Forward, said Congress created a route for eligible immigrants in the United States to seek permanent residence without uprooting their lives. Matthew Dellon, an attorney involved in the challenge, said the policies represented:
“a major shift with very real consequences,”
Dellon cited family separation, employment disruption and long waits abroad for consular appointments as potential consequences.
The requested court orders would cover applications already pending, not only cases filed after the two policies were issued. The plaintiffs also want the agency to apply prior standards when deciding those cases.
The policies remain in effect while the case proceeds
As of October 7, 2026, the lawsuit is pending. No reported ruling has found either policy unlawful, and no nationwide injunction has blocked enforcement.
The challenged guidance therefore remains operative unless a court grants preliminary or permanent relief. The case now puts the agency’s discretionary review and evidence procedures before a federal court.
