In a sweeping policy shift, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced that most foreign nationals seeking permanent residency – including over 600,000 Indians on H-1B visas – must now return to their home countries to complete the green card process .
The change was formalized through Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, issued on May 22, 2026, which instructs USCIS officers to treat Adjustment of Status (AOS) – the process of obtaining a green card from within the US – as an “extraordinary form of relief” rather than a routine pathway .
What has changed
Under the previous system, individuals on temporary visas such as H-1B, L-1, F-1 (students), and O-1 could file Form I-485 from inside the United States while continuing to work and live with their families. The process, known as adjustment of status, allowed applicants to remain in the country during the entire green card process, which often took several years .
Under the new policy, consular processing – applying for an immigrant visa at a US embassy or consulate in one’s home country – becomes the default pathway. USCIS spokesperson Zach Kahler stated: “From now on, an alien who is in the US temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances” .
Who is affected
The policy impacts a wide range of temporary visa holders:
- H-1B visa holders – 71% of all H-1B holders are Indians, approximately 600,000 currently in the US
- F-1 students – International students on student visas
- L-1 intra-company transferees
- TN visa holders (under USMCA)
- E-2 investors
- Tourists on B-1/B-2 visas
About 1.1 million Indians are currently waiting in the green card backlog, with wait times exceeding 50 years in some employment-based categories .
Who is least affected
Applicants in dual-intent visa categories – H-1B and L-1 – are relatively less affected because their visa status explicitly allows immigrant intent. The memorandum confirms that applying for adjustment of status is “not inconsistent” with maintaining H-1B or L-1 status .
However, USCIS clarifies that maintaining lawful status in a dual-intent category “is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion” . Officers may still deny AOS applications even for compliant H-1B holders.
Exceptions to the rule
USCIS has indicated two categories of likely exceptions :
- Economic benefit – Applicants who provide significant economic value to the US
- National interest – Cases deemed beneficial to US national security or strategic interests
Beyond these, the memo specifies that officers “must consider all relevant factors” including family ties, moral character, immigration history, and any conduct inconsistent with the purpose of admission .
Why the change now
USCIS argues the policy returns to the “original intent of the law” – that temporary visitors should leave when their stay ends, not use their visit as “the first step in the Green Card process” .
“After years of ignoring the intent of Congress in the adjustment of status application, USCIS is merely restating and reasserting that intent,” Kahler said . The agency also claims the change will free up USCIS resources to focus on humanitarian cases, naturalization applications, and victims of crime .
Impact on Indian applicants
Indian green card seekers face disproportionately severe consequences. The per-country cap of 7% creates backlogs exceeding 50 years. Under the new rules, applicants whose priority dates become current may be forced to:
- Leave their US jobs (employers are unlikely to hold positions for 6-12 months)
- Separate from US citizen family members
- Face consular processing backlogs that add years to wait times
Immigration lawyer Cyrus Mehta called the changes “absurd, illogical, cruel and in violation of law” in a social media post .
Legal challenges expected
Immigration attorneys widely anticipate litigation against the policy. The memorandum relies on discretionary authority granted to USCIS, but critics argue it contravenes the clear statutory intent of INA Section 245, which has allowed adjustment of status since 1952 .
The law firm Jackson Lewis notes: “Litigation challenging the policy is widely expected, particularly over the agency’s interpretation of the discretionary framework” .
