(UNITED STATES) — A long-standing Board of Immigration Appeals decision, Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970), holds that adjustment of status is discretionary relief, not an entitlement, even when the applicant is otherwise eligible. That principle now has immediate practical force in marriage-based cases after the Trump administration directed USCIS officers in May 2026 to treat adjustment as an extraordinary form of relief and to weigh adverse and favorable factors more aggressively.

The change has not eliminated green cards through marriage. A U.S. citizen may still file Form I-130 for a spouse under INA § 201(b)(2)(A)(i), and immediate relatives remain exempt from annual visa caps. The shift is narrower and more consequential: USCIS is putting renewed weight on discretionary denial under INA § 245, even in cases that once turned mainly on statutory eligibility, admissibility, and proof that the marriage is bona fide.

Matter of Arai is the right starting point because it explains how discretion works in adjustment cases. The BIA held that favorable discretion generally follows when adverse factors are absent, but where negative facts appear, the applicant may need offsetting equities. In Arai itself, the Board pointed to family ties and other positive considerations as relevant to whether adjustment should be granted. That framework has been cited for decades in adjustment litigation and agency adjudication.

USCIS has now formalized a stricter version of that balancing. On May 21, 2026, the agency issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, stating that adjustment of status is a matter of administrative grace and discretionary relief from the ordinary consular visa process. On May 22, 2026, USCIS publicly said adjustment would be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Officers were told to weigh adverse factors such as unlawful entry, overstays, prior status violations, fraud, misrepresentation, and the availability of consular processing abroad.

The policy also identifies favorable factors. Those include close family ties to a U.S. citizen spouse, lawful presence, community ties, good moral character, and contributions in the United States. That list tracks the structure of Matter of Arai, but the agency’s phrasing raises the bar. Marriage to a U.S. citizen remains relevant evidence; it is no longer safe to assume that the marriage itself will carry the discretionary analysis.

Reuters reported on July 6, 2026 that enhanced vetting has already produced delays, uncertainty, and uneven outcomes in immigration processing. In family-based filings, that report fits what immigration lawyers have been describing for weeks: more requests for records, more detailed interviews, and heavier review of prior entries, prior applications, and inconsistencies across immigration history.

Spouses of U.S. citizens are still in one of the strongest family-based categories under the statute. But a pending or approved Form I-130 does not itself grant lawful status, employment authorization, or protection from removal. That has always been true as a matter of law, and USCIS repeated the point in public statements this year. A person may have an approvable visa petition and still be denied adjustment, referred to enforcement, or required to pursue immigrant visa processing through a consulate.

Warning: A pending Form I-130 does not create lawful status. People with entry without inspection, prior removal orders, or fraud issues may face risks that go beyond a simple filing denial.

The facts that tend to drive discretionary trouble are familiar. Entry without inspection may block adjustment unless a separate provision applies. Misrepresentation may trigger inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Unlawful presence can create three-year and ten-year bars after departure under INA § 212(a)(9)(B). Prior removal or unlawful reentry may raise even more severe obstacles under INA § 212(a)(9)(A) and INA § 212(a)(9)(C). The 2026 policy does not create those bars, but it gives officers a stronger basis to deny as a matter of discretion when those facts appear anywhere in the record.

That matters in immediate-relative marriage cases because adjustment historically offered a practical route for many spouses already in the United States. Immediate relatives are excused from some bars that affect preference-category applicants, including certain unauthorized employment and status violations under INA § 245(c). Even so, they still must be admissible and must warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. The new memo presses officers to ask not only whether the person can adjust, but whether the person should be allowed to adjust inside the country rather than go through consular processing.

The legal tension is not new. Courts have long recognized broad agency discretion in adjustment decisions, though that discretion is not unlimited. A denial that ignores the statute, departs from regulation, or rests on legal error may still be challenged. Judicial review is often narrowed by INA § 242(a)(2)(B), which restricts review of discretionary judgments, but federal courts may still hear constitutional claims and questions of law under INA § 242(a)(2)(D). That leaves many applicants in a difficult position: the stronger the denial looks as a pure discretionary call, the harder it is to overturn.

No nationwide court order had blocked the May 2026 USCIS policy as of July 7, 2026. No clear circuit split has emerged on the validity of this specific memorandum. Litigation may develop around whether the agency has effectively rewritten adjustment standards without notice-and-comment rulemaking, or whether “extraordinary circumstances” conflicts with the statute Congress enacted in INA § 245(a). Those arguments have not yet produced a controlling court decision.

There is also no notable dissenting opinion because this is not a new BIA precedent decision. It is an agency policy directive layered onto existing discretionary case law. That distinction matters. A future BIA opinion or circuit ruling could narrow, approve, or reject parts of the memo. Until then, officers are applying the policy within the broad discretionary space recognized by decisions such as Matter of Arai.

Consular processing may become more important in some cases. It is not a cure-all. Departure may trigger unlawful presence bars, and some applicants need waivers before an immigrant visa interview is realistic. Still, where adjustment is vulnerable because of discretionary concerns tied to how the person entered or remained in the United States, counsel may evaluate whether an immigrant visa route is less exposed to the new USCIS framing. That analysis is highly fact-specific.

Practice point: Marriage remains a valid path to permanent residence and later citizenship, but 2026 filings require tighter record review. Prior applications, entry records, addresses, and sworn statements should match across the file.

In practical terms, applicants and counsel should expect more emphasis on documentary consistency and discretionary equities. Records that once seemed secondary may now carry real weight: tax transcripts, joint residence records, medical issues affecting the U.S. citizen spouse, proof of caregiving, community service, employment history, and evidence of rehabilitation where past problems exist. Officers may also focus more closely on whether prior visa applications, border encounters, or earlier filings contain discrepancies.

Marriage-based applicants with clean entries and consistent records may still obtain approval, though processing may be slower. Cases involving overstays, unauthorized employment, prior statements to immigration officials, or criminal history need closer legal review before any filing strategy is chosen. A rushed filing can lock damaging admissions into the record. An attorney can assess adjustment eligibility, inadmissibility issues, waiver options, and the risks of interview testimony.

The present rule on the ground is straightforward. The May 2026 guidance remains in effect. Adjustment for spouses of U.S. citizens has not been barred, but it is being adjudicated with sharper skepticism and broader use of discretion. Matter of Arai supplied the legal framework decades ago; the current administration is applying that framework with unusual force.

Official information is available through USCIS at Lawyer Referral service or the Immigration Advocates Network legal directory.

⚖️ 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.