By Amjambo Africa Staff
A sweeping new policy memorandum issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is poised to alter how immigrants apply for permanent residency, signaling a significant shift that will affect thousands of individuals currently living in the United States.
The directive states that “adjustment of status,” the long-standing legal process of applying for a green card without having to leave the country, will now be treated strictly as an “extraordinary relief” and a matter of “administrative grace.” Instead of allowing eligible immigrants to transition to permanent residency from within the country, the federal government intends to require most applicants to return to their home countries and apply through local American consulates.
Mulualem Adgeh, an immigration lawyer speaking exclusively to Amjambo Africa, explained that the policy fundamentally upends how the majority of domestic applicants obtain permanent residency.
“People get green cards two ways: One, apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad. Two, apply for a green card while already in the USA. The new USCIS memo seems to say that most people in group two should generally be denied a green card and forced to apply abroad,” Adgeh said.
According to Adgeh, the requirement to apply from abroad carries significant practical, financial, and legal consequences for applicants. “Why does it matter if people have to apply abroad? It could force people to leave their jobs, homes, and families for weeks or months, all at their own expense. Consular decisions are virtually unchallengeable in court, even when egregiously wrong. Backlogs can be much worse,” Adgeh said.
He further noted that this change strikes at the core of the existing immigration system, as domestic applicants make up a substantial portion of all permanent residency approvals each year.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Half of all green cards go to people in the second category; those here in the U.S. who applied for a green card through ‘adjustment of status.’ This group covers everyone from spouses and children of U.S. citizens to skilled professionals getting a green card through an employer,” Adgeh said.
Despite the firm language of the directive, Adgeh pointed out that many implementation details remain unresolved, leaving thousands of applicants in a state of uncertainty. “Importantly, the full scope of this new policy is unclear. USCIS says it will issue further guidance, and has not said whether it will impact pending cases. At its broadest, this could impact over 1000,000 people a year who are living in the U.S. when they get their green cards,” Adgeh said.
Practical implications for immigrant families
Legal experts warn that the requirement to leave the United States to complete the green card process introduces several operational and personal complications for families. Under the new guidelines, individuals who came to the country through humanitarian parole programs or on temporary visas, such as international students and temporary workers, face prolonged periods of geographic separation. Applicants must also secure long-distance flights and arrange for indefinite lodging and living expenses in their home countries while maintaining their existing financial obligations, such as rent, mortgages, and insurance, inside the United States.
Furthermore, departing the United States can trigger severe statutory penalties under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Adgeh explained that for certain populations, leaving the country to attend a consular interview can result in long-term exclusion from the United States. “Some people who can theoretically get a visa abroad may not be able to in practice, including undocumented spouses of citizens or people subject to Trump’s travel bans. If they leave, it may be decades before they can return. It’s not clear if they’re subject to this policy too,” Adgeh added.
Under the 1996 law, individuals who have accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence or who have engaged in unauthorized employment automatically trigger a three-year or 10-year bar to reentry the moment they depart the country. Consequently, an applicant who leaves for a standard consular interview may find themselves legally blocked from returning to their family in the United States.
Economic and labor market considerations
The policy change comes at a time when many states face tight labor markets and demographic shifts. In states like Maine, local industries rely heavily on foreign-born workers to sustain operations in healthcare, technology, hospitality, and agriculture.
When an employee is required to return to their home country for consular processing, employers lose that worker for an unpredictable duration. Hospitals utilizing foreign-born medical professionals, technology firms employing specialized engineers, and agricultural businesses transitioning workers to permanent status may face sudden staffing vacancies. Because consular wait times are subject to frequent delays, businesses cannot reliably predict when or if an employee will return, complicating corporate planning and workforce continuity.
Increased scrutiny for domestic applications
According to the directive, immigration officers will actively review records for any past terms of visa violations, including minor infractions such as brief periods of unauthorized employment or temporary lapses in student visa enrollment. The memorandum notes that attempting to bypass the standard consular process by remaining in the United States is considered a negative factor in itself.
To overcome this negative presumption, applicants must demonstrate “unusual or even outstanding equities,” meaning exceptional and compelling circumstances that justify an approval.
Adgeh noted that specific groups whose status is explicitly defined by humanitarian programs will not face these hurdles. “USCIS acknowledges that some groups of green card applicants are NOT impacted, either because Congress declared they could get green cards while here, or because they have no option to consular process. This includes asylees/refugees and other humanitarian visa categories,” Adgeh said.
For all other categories, however, adjudicators must now determine whether granting the green card domestically is strictly in the best interest of the United States, introducing a higher degree of subjectivity to the review process.
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the early June 2026 print edition of Amjambo Africa.
