u/LCNegrini

I want to emphasize that this is NOT RETROACTIVE. If you've already traveled via AP, you're fine. Just don't do it again. I'm going to look into if there's circuit law that would override this, so I'll keep ya'll posted.

Anyway

What does this ruling mean?

1. It used to be that leaving on AP did not impact those with removal orders. Now, if you leave the US even with advanced parole, you will be considered to have executed your removal order.
2. If you have unlawful presence (> 180 days/365) and leave with advanced parole, you will be deemed as inadmissible per the INA and will need a waiver to return.

The main question: If you are are DACA and you entered on EWI and you have unlawful presence, no, you should not travel via AP for now.

***Analysis subject to change*** I just woke up and read this, so I'll update as I learn more.

Jfc.

Hi all,

I'm seeing the same repeated questions for WOMs. Per a poll a while back, I am opening up this Q&A. I will respond to 8/20 during my week off from work and pin the thread.

Ask away!

For those who read this far: Tell me your favorite planet and why?

Let me know so I can schedule one

View Poll

Hi all,

If you have a DUI conviction, please talk to a post-conviction relief attorney in your state to get the conviction vacated and/or pled to wet reckless or the equivalent. (check if PCR is available in your state).

I am starting to see an annoying amount of applications (AOS, COR, etc.) denied in "discretion" based on DUIs from many years ago.

I know this sub hates folks with DUIs and actively cheers for denials, but keep in mind that DUIs that lead to injuries and/or property damage already have immigration consequences. I am seeing clients who have old DUI convictions get denied, despite going to AA or never reoffending. I've had clients who volunteered in schools to mentor at risk youth after their convictions still get denied.

The overly punitive and patronizing attitude towards those with DUI charges/convictions has consequences, and one of those are that undocumented people are not given nuance and are unnecessarily punished. No one here wants to be judged for actions they took many years ago, especially if no one got hurt.

And yes, hold those with DUIs accountable. Drunk driving destroys lives. However, don't think that this country cares about the victims. They care about punishing immigrants instead of investing in programs that do prevent drunk driving. You can be furious about drunk drivers, demand accountability, center the victims, and not fall for the current rhetoric. Multiple things can be true at once. (Go ahead and downvote me).

Kittens,

I have had to remove an unusual amount of unnecessarily rude, condescending, or outright disrespectful comments the past week. It's starting to make the sub hostile, and we don't want people to be too scared to ask questions or seek help here.

If you are annoyed at a comment or post and it's not productive to respond, don't do so. Scrolling takes less than a few seconds.

On a side note: If you feel your post/comment was taken down unfairly by automod, message the mods (first, read the automod's reasons for removal, don't just message us asking "why was my post removed"?) Please don't re-post the post/comment. Otherwise, you are clogging the backlog of posts we have to review to manually approve. It's usually just two of us moderating, so please be nice.

Lastly, I get either people absolutely love or absolutely hate the megathreads. If you are among the latter, you can reorganize comments to make sure new ones appear.

Okay. Carry on.

As an immigration attorney, I am not surprised. They've been hinting it in their court filings since summer 2025.

womp

Title.

***This does not give anyone permission to bash on those with rapid approvals. Everyone is struggling here***

Please please please consult with a dual immigration/federal litigation attorney to prepare one!

EDIT:

Okay, I’m getting some Qs re this. Thought I would answer them here:

1.      How much would this cost? – it depends. Some attorneys ask for an initial payment to draft the mandamus and litigate with the AUSA, and they won’t file unless necessary. If the matter is solved prior to any filing, it’s typically in the $2.5k region (ish).

2.      Is it possible to do pro se? – yes. In fact, there is a user here who did it pro se not too long ago. The **only** reasons I recommend an attorney here are (1) if you are overwhelmed about the process, and/or (2) you find an attorney who has a political relationship with the local AUSAs. Those with good relationships are usually able to get matters resolved before filing anything (not always, but it helps the odds).

3.      How do I start? – contact an immigration attorney with federal litigation experience. Most of us have this (especially nowadays). If you are planning on doing this on your own, find out the federal district court that would have jurisdiction over your case. Read their local court rules on how to prepare and file a mandamus action.

4.      What documentation should I add? – you need to prove that you exhausted all methods to get your renewal. Meaning, you contacted your congressperson, you did an inquiry, and you requested an expedite. You will need proof of each of these. You can add positive equity documents like employer letters and diplomas, but those are not material to the case. It does add a nice bow on top of the case, though.

5.      What if I have a removal order? Am I at risk? – having a removal order puts you at higher risk in general. I would speak to an attorney to see how you can rescind the removal order if I were you. However, mandamus litigations involve the federal court, not immigration courts. Federal judges have no say in when and how your removal order is executed. If you are afraid that this filing could put you in ICE radar, maybe. Keep in mind that you already are under ICE radar by having DACA. The risk, in my opinion, is generally the same. Again, an attorney should be able to tell you more depending on your specific situation.

ok

lmao

Hi all,

I received some intel regarding recent marriage based AOS interviews. I cannot share what field office or what type of visa (if any), but these are questions that the individual was asked:

1. Why were you unable to do consular processing?

2. What circumstances, if any, stop you from pursuing CP?

3. What family or community ties do you have in your home country?

4. Why did you stay past your authorized entry period?

^^^ the above questions sound a lot like I-601A. If you have an attorney, talk to them about having declarations ready or any positive equity evidence (employment, community ties, family hardship, etc.)

After spending most of the day Friday and some this weekend talking through the new AOS policy memo with my clients, I wanted to post what I hope is a short, honest assessment of what this memo does and does not do based on what I know now, and through the lens of my time working both family and employment based AOS as a USCIS officer and supervisor.

This is not legal advice and you should (especially now) consult with a licensed and experienced immigration attorney if considering applying for AOS. Please do not DM any questions but post them in the forum for others.

First, as with most policy memos USCIS issues, a lot will come down to how it is implemented and operationalized at the officer level. My understanding is that front line staff were not given a heads-up on this and have not been given any concrete adjudication guidance, which is very common. What happens next will largely depend on how officers are told to implement this policy, and how they actually do this.

In my view, this new memo is mostly a scare tactic. It is more of the same public messaging this administration has done since day one: try to get more immigrants not to apply for benefits they are eligible and legally entitled to receive and increase the population they can get to deport (self deport or through proceedings). They have tried this before in trump 1.0 with the public charge rule and this feels very similar in that regards. It is also, by and large, laughably wrong on almost all significant aspects of the history of AOS. The policy manual still contains this section on its 245(a) section for example: “In 1952, Congress made the pre-examination process unnecessary by creating INA 245, which allowed eligible aliens to obtain LPR status through adjustment of status without leaving the United States. Congress indicated that adjustment should be used for purposes of family unity or otherwise be in the public interest.” It’s not a “loophole” or meant to be used only for “extraordinary” cases; that defies clear congressional intent and the Agency’s own guidance.

Beyond the primary purpose, this new guidance could lead to a more difficult adjudication environment for AOS for most applicants. I don’t think this means AOS is dead for most people, and I also don’t think everything will continue like it did before, after this memo. I do think USCIS will start to look more closely at all kinds of factors and in some cases, make a discretionary analysis that could lead to denials, the type that it hasn’t routinely done in the past. This could and likely will lead to far more paperwork needed to submit, more legal analysis by attorneys, and longer adjudication time as officers must now conduct a more thorough analysis. For my own cases, I am already strongly looking at how to frame my applicants to fit within the recognized congressional intent explicitly mentioned above: family unity and public interest.

Where this heads entirely depends on how far the Agency wants to take it. If it tries to treat this guidance as it portrays it for public consumption (only granting “extraordinary” cases), it will be buried in lawsuits and losses. But, if it starts performing a more nuanced and careful analysis balancing positive and negative factors, it will likely result in slightly more denials, but much, much more time and effort needed for both applicants and the Agency.

The legal jargon. I am Burke Brown III, managing attorney at Polaris Law Group. I am an attorney, not your attorney. This is not legal advice. I have had a little time to break down the memo and I want to help calm the waters a bit.

First, adjustment of status is not "dead."

This is an unsigned memo quoting two BIA cases from the 70s. Its legal foundation is almost as strong as my first law school memo (every lawyer will chuckle). It quotes section 245(a) as supporting law and then goes on to completely ignore the actual text of 245(a). The executive is not able to re-write the laws. They cannot add a standard of "by a showing of unusual or even outstanding equities" when it is clearly contrary to the statutes. We will fight this in federal court, just like we fought (and won) on EWI bond jurisdiction. Our team is waiting for a case to litigate. I hope that case doesn't come, but I'm excited to take the fight if it does. (This is only an actionable suit if the issue is "ripe." We have to show that harm has occurred through a denial or acknowledged delay. I don't get many denials, and I don't want to start now.)

What are they trying to accomplish with this memo?

1. Ease the burden on the affirmative immigration system (USCIS) by causing people to "give up" and go home.

This has been a common theme since January 2025. EADs and TPS applications are not being adjudicated. HR1 gutted the ability for people to maintain work authorization during their lawful period of stay. Lawful immigration is being squeezed in every way possible. People that should be eligible to adjust are being detained at interviews for no apparent reason. ICE is being used as a public show of force against liberal and moderate communities. This administration is doing everything it can to get people to give up before trying.

2. USCIS is trying to force cases outside the jurisdiction of the Courts and attorneys.

I always attend interviews with clients. I am willing to fly across the county to attend adjustment interviews. I have stopped cases from derailing. My presence ensures my client won't get railroaded. I know the cues to look for. I've done this hundreds of times. I can take notes and law the record for an appeal. The government is acting like a bully. Bullies want soft targets. Attorneys are not allowed to attend consular appointments (even if the client could afford to fly us out to the consulate). They are trying to "do away" with the right to counsel by shifting the processing to DOS.

There is also the issue of consular nonreviewability. You are unable to bring a federal lawsuit for consular misconduct or arbitrary and capricious decision making. This admin has his behind it repeatedly. This is why they are attacking I-130 + 601a processing.

3. The memo only quotes BIA cases from pre 1980 for a reason: it does not reflect the current law or INA (IIRAIRA passed in 1996, quoting congressional intent from the 70s is irrelevant).

There is a reason their star case is from the 1970s. It doesn't reflect the congressional intent of the INA. IIRAIRA was passed in 1996. When the case (that their entire argument is based on) was decided, there were no 3, 5, and 10 year bars. Consular processing was the typical way to go. However, that changed when Congress passed IIRAIRA, added the bars, and reformed 245(a) to bolster adjustment of status. What they did was looked through the tens of thousands of cases and pulled a case that had a ruling that fit their argument without checking whether it was later distinguished by legal or factual changes. This is a common error for first year law students (bringing back memories of that 1l memo). I also believe that this is what will doom them in federal court.

What are we doing to address this?

My team is going through every pending AOS to add positive discretionary factors. How can we prepare for the alleged RFEs and questions at interviews? By being prepared ahead of time.

We will have a blunt conversation with every client before we file. We will explain that the law says x, but USCIS is saying Y. We advise going forward, but it could take extensive time and $ if we need to litigate in federal court. We take every case on knowing that we might need to litigate it in federal court. We are not passive. Passive does not help families. Passive does not protect rights.

Is now a good time to file for adjustment of status?

If you qualify? Yes. Yesterday was better than today and a year ago was better than yesterday. Stop worrying about things you can't control. Control what you can control. Is it going to be more expensive? Yes. Is this another reason to file with a legitimate attorney instead of self filing or going with a notario? Probably, but only you can make that value judgement.

Please, do not send me case specific questions through DM. Email me at burke@polarislawyers.com. Just because you email me doesn't create an attorney client relationship, it only preserves confidentiality.