(UNITED STATES) — Adjustment of status under INA § 245, and related requests for extraordinary relief, now sit at the center of a harder U.S. immigration enforcement posture that DHS and USCIS have described in public statements throughout 2026.

The policy shift reaches beyond paperwork. It coincides with accelerated Trump Border Wall construction, record detention levels, and broad ICE Expansion.

DHS said wall funding now ranges from $37 billion to $46.5 billion, with roughly 450 miles completed from earlier phases and more segments under contract or construction. DHS also reported more than 622,000 removals in 2025, while the fiscal 2026 budget seeks 100,000 detention beds and a larger enforcement workforce.

For people seeking lawful permanent residence from inside the United States, the immediate legal issue is whether adjustment remains available at all. USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler said on May 22, 2026, that a temporary noncitizen seeking a green card must return abroad to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances.

If that approach is applied as announced, many applicants who once relied on domestic filing may be pushed into consular processing, where unlawful presence, prior removal orders, and inadmissibility grounds can create new barriers.

Adjustment has always been discretionary. INA § 245(a) allows certain noncitizens who were inspected and admitted or paroled to apply for permanent residence if an immigrant visa is immediately available and they are admissible. The Board has long treated adjustment as relief, not entitlement.

Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970), remains a basic citation for the proposition that favorable discretion matters. What appears new is the agency’s description of adjustment itself as an exceptional measure rather than a routine path for otherwise eligible applicants.

DHS and USCIS have paired that view with a broader enforcement-first doctrine. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in February that the administration was using expanded funding to strengthen Border Patrol, CBP, and ICE. USCIS issued Policy Alert PA-2026-01 on May 8, 2026, stating that deferred action should be treated as an extraordinary use of prosecutorial discretion and reviewed case by case.

Executive Order 14159, signed on January 20, 2025, also elevated alien registration and fingerprinting compliance as enforcement priorities.

That combination affects defense strategy in removal cases, bond matters, and affirmative filings. A noncitizen who once expected to file Form I-485 with supporting waivers may now face a threshold question: whether USCIS will reject or deny adjustment in favor of consular processing abroad.

In court, counsel may need to preserve multiple fallback positions at once, including continuances, termination arguments where available, waivers of inadmissibility, and requests for deferred action or parole tied to compelling facts.

The first defense question is statutory eligibility. A person usually must show inspection and admission or parole, an immediately available visa number, and admissibility under INA § 212. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens often have broader room to adjust, while employment-based and family preference applicants face quota limits.

Certain applicants may also rely on grandfathering under INA § 245(i), though that provision depends on older filings and exact dates.

The second question is whether an exception to the new policy can be documented. USCIS has used the phrase extraordinary circumstances, but public statements do not supply a detailed universal test. In practice, attorneys will likely build records around severe medical hardship, urgent humanitarian factors, a strong public interest basis, or facts showing consular processing would create consequences beyond ordinary delay.

Deferred action, humanitarian parole, and waivers remain discretionary and fact specific.

Evidence must be organized with unusual care. Typical filings include identity documents, proof of lawful entry, I-94 records, passports, visa history, marriage or birth records, approved petitions such as Form I-130 or Form I-140, and records addressing every admissibility concern.

A claim of extraordinary relief usually needs more: physician letters, hospital records, psychological evaluations, school records for affected children, military records, affidavits, financial records, country conditions evidence, and proof of any caregiving role that cannot be replaced.

Cases strengthen when the applicant has a clean criminal record, steady tax compliance, long residence, consistent maintenance of status when required, and credible documentary support. Strong equities also include U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relatives with serious needs, prior government error, or a procedural posture that makes departure unusually harsh.

Employment history alone is rarely enough. Bare hardship statements, without records, usually do little.

Cases weaken quickly when the file contains fraud concerns, false claims to U.S. citizenship, unresolved arrests, gang allegations, prior removal orders, repeated status violations, or long unlawful presence. Some issues are discretionary negatives. Others are statutory bars.

INA § 212(a)(6)(C) covers fraud and misrepresentation. INA § 212(a)(9) addresses unlawful presence and prior removals. Criminal grounds under INA § 212(a)(2) can also block relief. A single trip abroad can activate bars that did not matter while the person remained in the United States.

Detention adds another layer. ICE’s detained population reached about 73,400 in mid-January 2026, according to the figures cited by DHS. A detained applicant may have far less access to records, medical experts, and witnesses. Counsel often must move fast to secure A-files, medical records, bond evidence, and proof of relief eligibility.

Conditions in remote facilities can also affect mental health evaluations and communication with family members who hold key documents.

Travel has become riskier as well. Expanded vetting and restrictions that took effect on January 1, 2026 reportedly increased scrutiny for some dual nationals and people with long prior residence in designated countries. Anyone considering advance parole or international travel while a case is pending should expect close review at the port of entry.

CBP inspection is separate from USCIS adjudication, and a pending application does not guarantee admission.

Realistic outcome expectations vary by posture. No public dataset yet breaks out approval rates for post-May 2026 extraordinary relief requests tied to domestic green card processing. That makes prediction difficult. What can be said with confidence is narrower.

Cases with complete records, a clear statutory path, and severe documented hardship may still succeed. Cases resting on ordinary inconvenience, financial strain alone, or weak admissibility analysis face poor odds. Removal defense becomes especially difficult once an applicant departs and triggers inadmissibility bars.

Attorney representation is not optional in any practical sense where unlawful presence, criminal history, prior orders, or possible fraud exist. A qualified immigration lawyer can compare adjustment, consular processing, waivers, deferred action, parole, and court-based defenses under the current rules.

Jurisdiction also matters. Circuit law can shape continuances, review of agency discretion, and procedural rights in removal proceedings. Immigration Court, the BIA, and the federal courts do not always treat the same record the same way.

Government updates remain essential because the doctrine is changing through agency statements, policy alerts, and enforcement directives. DHS has posted its Year in Review 2025, border wall updates, and related notices on barrier construction, including activity in the Big Bend sector.

USCIS has posted policy updates at its Policy Manual update page. EOIR procedure and court information remain available at justice.gov/eoir. People screening for relief or waiver eligibility may also review the statute and regulations through law.cornell.edu.

⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.

Resources:

• AILA Lawyer Referral
• Immigration Advocates Network