r/USCIS

This is not legal advice. I also have no more information than yall do.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-602-0199-AdjustmentOfStatusAndDiscretion-20260521.pdf

Right now, it looks like almost everyone could be subject to consular processing. There could be a hold on all green card for immigrants inside the United States.

A few caveats:
-We don't know what extraordinary circumstances mean. The memo did not being to adequately define who falls under this exception. I imagine those who cannot CP due to pending asylum applications or civil unrest back home could be immune to this memo. I also imagine health and inability to travel will be taken into account. I do not know though.
-I expect litigation on this and I expect it soon. This is a sweeping memo that is begging for a lawsuit. I'm seeing some forums lighting up in the immigration attorney chats, but I don't have any more information at this time.
-Call your members of Congress. Tell your friends to do it too. This memo will impact a lot of families and Congress needs to hear you're unhappy with the outcome.

I have about a two hour window to answer questions. I know everyone is very scared right now and I'm sure I cannot remove those anxieties, but I will do my best to help and answer questions directly.

If you read the actual memo, the language is FAR LESS threatening than the public announcement. Public posts are extremely strongly worded. But the memo itself is not even a big policy change. Here is why:

"This memorandum reminds officers and the public...."

"USCIS reaffirms this consistent and longstanding approach..."

In other words, this memo only "reaffirms" and "reminds".

Please do not panic. Public messaging is intended to sound scary and it indeed does appear so. But the memo itself is not that overarching.

No details were given but the hint is pretty clear

I am from Libya applied to renew my EAD i am on j2 visa my wife j1 she is doing residency 5th year i did biometrics on may 6th , my application receipt date is 2 april my current EAD expire end of June can i get the new one before expiration ? Anyone same situation Libya on of 49 banned country

interviewed yesterday 715am got approved today 650am is this a fever dream

Did anyone have an interview in Saint Louis for marriage based green card? How did it go and what was your experience overall?

Need some honest opinions

I’m a U.S. citizen and my wife’s I 130 has been pending 26 months now. We recently had a baby and got the baby a U.S. passport through me already

Tried expedite requests, congressman, humanitarian parole, etc. and still nothing moving.

Now me and my wife are considering me taking the baby back to the U.S. temporarily while continuing the immigration case and possibly filing mandamus.

Would that actually help the case from a hardship/legal standpoint since it would basically separate a mother from her newborn because of the delay? Or does USCIS/courts not really care about that?

Just trying to figure out the smartest move at this point please advise if you have any ideas

For people who are getting approved today and moving forwards, can you let us know if you were on a non immigration intent visa? Just so we know if USCIS is not adjudicating these AOS cases?

1 of 4:

Summary of today's Dorcas hearing:

Plaintiffs' attorney, lead counsel in this case, explains that this policy has caused severe harm to all applicants and lawful immigrants.
Judge asks: "Why have legal organizations filed the lawsuit? Why aren't the real people here?"

The attorney responds that there are numerous class-action lawsuits as well, showing that real individuals have been harmed, and there's no need for everyone to appear personally in court. He says the legal organizations are pursuing this because they are directly connected to the harmed immigrants, and working with immigrants is the core mission of these organizations.

The attorney then begins explaining historical examples; cases where the government or certain government entities had held decision-making for extended periods in the past. He cites an example from the FDA, which years ago halted a decision in a case, and later the court overturned that action.

The attorney argues that USCIS is now doing exactly the same thing. This hold has caused financial harm to organizations as well as to individuals, and overall, it has damaged the core mission of the organizations.

Judge asks: "You're a nonprofit—why are you talking about financial issues?"

The attorney replies: "Yes, we are a nonprofit, but all of our activities are tied to immigrants, and these individuals are the foundation of our mission."

After that, the attorney delves into explaining the true meaning of "pause" and provides examples regarding work permits. He explains that during those 90 days the government promised the issue would be resolved, practically nothing happened. He then raises the harms inflicted and personal stories of individuals from affected countries, challenging the government's claims.

The plaintiffs' attorney emphasizes that this is not just a "delay," but effectively a "stoppage." He warns that if the court does not halt this decision, the government will gradually abuse these types of actions and turn them into permanent policy and law.
2 of 4:

The second attorney for the plaintiffs argues that this policy constitutes an abuse of power and that no such authority has been granted to the government or executive branches under the law. He says that because of the shooting that occurred on Thanksgiving Day, the entire legal immigration system has been affected, and it appears the government is using that incident as a pretext for implementing this policy.

The judge then asks:
"If, instead of this broad decision, only Afghans were restricted and this policy targeted just them, would it still be illegal in your view? Given that the shooter was an Afghan."

The attorney responds: "Yes, it would still be illegal," and then lays out his legal arguments.

Continuing, the judge says:
"It seems this puzzle is dynamic and evolving. It even feels a bit better to me."

But the plaintiffs' attorney objects and says:
"Not at all. In fact, its intensity and scope have only grown."

He points out that the government has stated somewhere that doctors might receive an exception from this policy, but nothing is clear yet—neither its mechanism nor its real impact.

The attorney continues:
"If this decision is bad and you want to exempt doctors from it so they don't get hurt, then why keep everyone else in it to suffer? Why should a PhD researcher stay trapped in this puzzle and get hurt, while only doctors are let out? What kind of decision-making is that?"

He then steers the discussion to the legal basis of the decision, saying the closest thing the government could cite is the Travel Ban; even that law, however, applied to people outside U.S. soil, not those who are legally present inside the country.
3 of 4:

It's the USCIS attorney's turn, and he says that the law has granted such discretion to this agency.

But the judge immediately cuts him off and says:

"Tell me exactly where in the law and in what form such discretion has been given to you that allows you to freeze everything all at once and bring no application to a conclusion. Such a thing does not exist."

The government attorney responds that the government has the discretion to take such action.

The judge says:

"People are being harmed, and it's serious harm. Especially those who don't have work authorization."

The government attorney replies:

"Our interpretation of the law is that due to national security, we have such discretion."

The judge asks:

"How does the fact that one Afghan carried out a shooting relate to the rest, that you pause all applications?"

The attorney again refers to the government's legal authorities and says the law permits it.

The judge responds bluntly:

"This discretion pertains to visas, not to people who are already inside U.S. soil right now and whose entire lives and livelihoods depend on these benefits and permits. If there was going to be a pause, it should have been limited and specific, not broad and sweeping. It should have been specific."

The government attorney says:

"These benefits are not an absolute right of anyone."

The judge replies:

"Correct, but you can't arbitrarily give it to one person and deny it to another. People are being harmed, and that's a fact."

The government attorney gives a vague and general response.

The judge says:

"I really expected a better answer. You can't even respond at all, let alone a better one."

The judge then explains, using the example of someone without work authorization who is stuck in this pause, that these individuals are harmed every day, and the government cannot deny this reality.

The government attorney continues:

"If we look at it that way, perhaps the harm itself is acceptable, but these organizations don't even have the standing to sue, because they themselves haven't been directly harmed."

The judge immediately asks:

"So you're confirming that real people have been harmed, correct?"

The attorney responds:

"Yes, I concede that."

The judge concludes:

"So these organizations too, because they are directly involved with immigrants and these harms, can legally bring a lawsuit."
4 of 4:

The government attorney says:
"We are gradually dismantling this pause; it's just that the process is slow."

The judge responds:
"So far, at least eight courts have said this pause is illegal. How many more courts need to say the same thing for you to get it? You should have stopped this policy yourselves after those rulings. But since you didn't, this class action lawsuit was filed, and that's why we're here today."

The judge continues:
"When courts tell you this decision is illegal, you need to shut it down. Not just back off for that specific case because it wasn't a class action, while leaving the rest of the people still on pause and suffering harm."

The government attorney visibly hesitates and pauses, offering no clear response.

The judge asks:
"So, when exactly do you plan to lift this pause entirely?"

The government attorney replies:
"I don't know. But just because someone entered the U.S. legally doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to them. We don't trust the information coming from these 39 countries because even one of those countries has a state sponsor of terrorism designation."

The judge responds:
"If this policy was going to be implemented, it should have been on an individual basis. But you've paused everyone. You've halted all benefits, even for people who have green cards and just want to renew them."

Later, the government attorney tries again, instead of defending the pause itself, to challenge the standing of the organizations that brought the lawsuit. He argues that the direct harm is to individuals, not to the organizations themselves; therefore, these organizations lack the standing to sue.

The government attorney says:
"Individuals who are personally harmed can file lawsuits like in previous cases, and if the court rules in their favor, we'll address their requests. The people who are harmed go and file suits. So why should these organizations be the plaintiffs?"

He also adds:
"With this pause, we're actually buying time to improve and strengthen our vetting and screening processes."

The judge responds:
"If such authority is going to exist, Congress should have granted it to you—not you creating it for yourselves."

Later, the government attorney explains that:
"We've been working on this pause since October 2025. The shooting by that Afghan individual just accelerated the implementation of this policy. It wasn't like we cooked up a law overnight."

After the government attorney's time ends, the judge thanks him.

In the final fifteen minutes, the plaintiffs' attorneys review the harms inflicted again and explain exactly how individuals are suffering in their daily lives, and that the immigration agency lacks the legal authority to implement this policy.

The judge then asks:
"What's your response to the government's claim that the information provided by those 30 countries is unreliable, and therefore applicants from those countries can't be trusted?"

The plaintiffs' attorney replies:
"There's no such provision in the law allowing the government to say we trust one country but not another. No such authority is defined. If there are security concerns, they must be addressed on an individual basis, not by placing all individuals from those countries under a blanket pause."

The court session concludes, and the judge announces that a ruling will be issued at the earliest opportunity.

I just received a call today w/ caller ID: Dhs ICE from their office in a state I don't live in (but I have visited before).

Their method of verifying their legitimacy was to point me to the ice.gov website, then go to the "Contact Us" section and identify the field office they're calling from, which was only 1 number off from the number you can see online.

They were telling me someone had a passport issued in another country in my name and that there's an ongoing investigation. They provided their name, badge number (which I cannot verify), and told me I cannot answer any calls while I'm on the phone with them and if disconnected, wait for them to call back, then said I cannot transfer any money more than $500 during these 5 days. They added another person, their supervisor, to confirm I understand this process.

They also asked me not go let anyone know I am under investigation and if anyone is in the room with me, just tell them I'm doing an interview.

They asked to confirm my first and last name, if I traveled internationally, if I suspect my data was leaked online and where, the names of the banking institutions I have credit cards in, any names of brokerage accounts I own, my zip code, and whether I own or rent.

I asked for a case number so I can log into the ICE or IRS portal regarding their investigation and they said there isn't one because the case was just opened today. I also asked if my case could be transferred to a field office in my state and they refused saying my case is under their jurisdiction.

They threatened that I must provide information or else I have to answer to the local police department (most likely bc I disclosed my zip code) and get detained with a warrant for not cooperating. I didn't do anything wrong, so I don't see why that would be an issue.

I ultimately did not move forward with the call because my husband spoke up saying this was a scam. They hung up.

Please be careful, everyone.