Lawsuit Challenges New USCIS Green Card Rules: What Plaintiffs Are Demanding and What It Means for Applicants

On October 5, 2026, unions, an immigrant legal aid organization, and six green card applicants filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts against two USCIS memos that turned green card approval inside the United States into an exceptional measure and allowed denials without a request for evidence (RFE).

In short

• On October 5, 2026, a lawsuit was filed against USCIS over two memos — from May 21 and August 5, 2026.
• After August 5, a USCIS officer can deny a green card outright, without requesting missing documents.
• The new rules apply even to applications filed before May 21, 2026 — with no transition period.
• The plaintiffs are seeking both a temporary and permanent block on the two policies, plus their vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Until a court rules, both policies remain in effect for all pending green card applications.

What happened: the October 5 lawsuit against USCIS

A lawsuit against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was filed on October 5 in federal court in Massachusetts. The defendants are the Department of Homeland Security, its secretary, and the director of USCIS.

The plaintiffs include faculty unions — including chapters at Harvard and Boston University — service workers’ unions, an immigrant legal aid organization, and six green card applicants. These six individuals are the direct plaintiffs in the case; the other participants represent the interests of their members.

The lawsuit targets two USCIS policy memos governing how green card applications are reviewed.

Two paths to a green card: adjustment of status and consular processing

A green card can be obtained in two ways. The first is adjustment of status, for people already in the United States: the applicant files Form I-485 while continuing to live and work in the country under their current status, and that status changes to lawful permanent resident. If an application is missing documents, USCIS normally sends a request for evidence (RFE) before issuing a denial — that has been standard procedure.

Adjustment of status is by far the more common route: by most estimates, the majority of green cards in recent years have been issued through it rather than through consular processing abroad.

The second method is consular processing. Here the procedure takes place outside the United States: the applicant leaves the country, applies at a U.S. embassy — usually in their home country — undergoes a medical exam, and then faces entry and additional administrative processing.

This path carries risks that adjustment of status does not. Administrative processing can drag on, leaving the applicant stuck outside the U.S. for an indefinite period. Leaving the country can also trigger a bar on reentry of three or ten years, depending on the circumstances of the case.

It is precisely the adjustment of status procedure described above that the two USCIS memos discussed below are aimed at.

Adjustment of status vs. consular processing

Criterion	Adjustment of status	Consular processing
Where the procedure takes place	Inside the U.S.	Outside the U.S.
Does it require leaving the country	No	Yes
If documents are missing	USCIS sends an RFE	Additional administrative processing
Risk of being stuck abroad	None	Yes, for an indefinite period
Risk of a reentry bar	None	3 or 10 years, depending on circumstances

Both USCIS memos apply specifically to adjustment of status.

What changed in May and August 2026: the two USCIS memos

The first USCIS memo was issued on May 21, 2026; the plaintiffs say it was not preceded by the public comment period that normally accompanies a policy change of this kind. Before that point, approval of a green card was treated as the normal outcome for an applicant who met the requirements and had no red flags in their file. The memo reframes that entirely: receiving a green card while the applicant is on U.S. soil is now described as “exceptional relief” and an “act of administrative grace” rather than the routine result of adjustment of status.

receiving a green card while the applicant is on U.S. soil is now described as “exceptional relief” and an “act of administrative grace” rather than the routine result of adjustment of status

That language has a practical consequence — the fact that an applicant did not leave the U.S. to apply through an embassy abroad now counts as a negative factor in the review. Separate exceptions exist for H-1B visa holders, but the memo states plainly that dual intent alone (which the H-1B visa itself permits) is not enough for a favorable decision.

The second memo, signed August 5, 2026, addresses not the grounds for denial but the procedure itself. Before that date, if documents were missing, a USCIS officer would typically request the missing materials or issue a notice of intent to deny, giving the applicant a chance to supply more evidence. After August 5, an officer may deny the application outright, with no prior request, if the evidence is insufficient or absent.

After August 5, an officer may deny the application outright, with no prior request, if the evidence is insufficient or absent

Do the new rules apply to applications already filed

The new rules apply to all pending cases — including those filed long before the May and August memos. This is one of the central arguments plaintiffs raise in the case against USCIS.

The problem lies in the combination of the two dates. An applicant who filed before May 21 acted under the old rules and had no reason to preemptively resolve gray areas in their case — at the time, that wasn’t required. But once the August memo took effect, those same gaps now give an officer the right to deny outright, without an RFE and without warning.

The result is a trap: a case filed under one set of rules may be decided under another — with no time to respond or supply what’s missing. The plaintiffs argue that the absence of a transition period is precisely what makes applying the memos to already-filed applications especially vulnerable to legal challenge.

The result is a trap: a case filed under one set of rules may be decided under another

Who is affected: H-1B, L-1, F-1, and family-based applicants

The plaintiffs hold different visa types, chosen to show how the new rules hit applicants across different statuses.

H-1B and L-1 visas fall under the dual intent category: their holders can work in the U.S. and pursue a green card at the same time without violating their visa terms. Among the plaintiffs are Harvard professors on H-1B visas whose petitions were approved in September 2026.

F-1, unlike H-1B and L-1, is a single intent visa: a student is, by default, expected to leave the U.S. after finishing their studies. The new rules tighten this category specifically — an applicant who cannot show exceptional circumstances to stay will have to leave. One of the plaintiffs is an F-1 student from Nigeria working as an analyst at Comcast.

The third group is family-based applicants. One plaintiff has lived in the U.S. for three years on a family-based case tied to marriage to a U.S. citizen.

The mix of plaintiffs isn’t accidental: a lawsuit needs people who have actually been harmed by the new rules, so the case includes applicants with different visa statuses and different grounds for seeking a green card.

Exceeding authority granted by law since 1952

The first of six arguments in the lawsuit is that USCIS exceeded the authority Congress granted it back in 1952. Before that, in the early twentieth century, getting a green card required leaving the U.S.: an applicant underwent preliminary screening abroad — in Canada, for example — and only then returned with the appropriate status.

In 1952, Congress eliminated the requirement for preliminary screening abroad and introduced adjustment of status — a procedure that allows a status change without leaving the country. The procedure has been amended more than 25 times since then, but no amendment has ever reinstated a departure requirement.

The plaintiffs argue that once Congress weighed the risks and loopholes and deliberately established adjustment of status as a no-departure path, the agency has no authority to use a memo to introduce conditions that effectively revive the pre-war logic of mandatory departure. In their view, USCIS cannot expand its own authority beyond what the law delegated to it — and that, they say, is exactly what exceeding the authority granted by the 1952 act means.

The other five arguments: from arbitrariness to violating the agency’s own practice

The second argument is the same procedural date trap described above: applicants who filed before May 21 now face the risk of denial under rules introduced after they filed, with no time to supply what’s missing.

The remaining four arguments:

• Arbitrary decision-making. USCIS gave no reasonable explanation for why the new requirements were needed — the lawsuit calls this an arbitrary and capricious decision.
• Disregard for good-faith applicants. The new rules make no exception for people who filed relying on the agency’s prior practice and acted in good faith.
• Skipping the public comment period. A rule of this scale, the plaintiffs argue, should have gone through public notice and comment — they say it did not, even though the first argument in the lawsuit already relies on that same requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act for how regulations are adopted.
• Violating USCIS’s own established practice. Board of Immigration Appeals decisions and current policy guidance hold that an application meeting the requirements should generally be approved. The plaintiffs argue the new rules contradict this. They also point to a denial of due process: before a denial, applicants are normally given a chance to cure deficiencies, and the new rules remove that opportunity.

What the plaintiffs are seeking, and what happens next

The lawsuit was filed October 5, and as of this writing no court ruling has been issued: both policies remain in effect for all applications — those already filed and new ones alike. The plaintiffs are seeking several forms of relief. First, a temporary block on both policies while the case is litigated — a measure known as an injunction or temporary restraining order. Second, a permanent block on the same policies once the case is decided on the merits. Third, vacatur of the policies under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), along with an order requiring immigration authorities to return to the longstanding practice that predated the memos.

The next major event to watch is whether a judge will grant a temporary block on the policies pending a full hearing on the merits. That ruling will determine whether applicants get relief now or have to wait for a final verdict.

Beyond this lawsuit, other cases are in the works: separate private law firms are organizing their own legal challenges against the same May and August memos. These parallel lawsuits will affect a large number of applicants who have filed for adjustment of status.

What to do if you have a green card application pending right now

For applicants who already have a green card application pending, nothing changes for now: both policies — the May and August memos — continue to apply to their case until a court rules otherwise.

• If a green card application is already under review, it’s worth discussing with an attorney how to bring the case in line with both policies.
• It may help to proactively add positive evidence to the file — proof of employment, tax payment records, and other information favorable to the applicant.
• F-1 students should also discuss with an attorney how the new policies could affect their status — the rules reach this category as well.
• F-1 or H-1B status alone does not guarantee approval: the agency retains significant discretion in applying both policies, and decisions in these cases are subjective.
• If there’s any concern about possibly having to leave the country given the current state of the case, that question is also worth raising with an attorney.

What to do if a green card application is already filed

• Discuss with an attorney whether the case aligns with both new policiesrequiredThe May and August 2026 memos
• Add positive evidence to the filerequiredProof of employment, tax payments, and other information favorable to the applicant
• Discuss with an attorney how the new rules affect F-1 statusRelevant for students
• Clarify the risks of leaving the U.S.If there’s concern about the current state of the case

Frequently asked questions

What happens to a green card application if the documents were already filed but there wasn’t enough time to prepare before the changes

While that application is being reviewed, both policies currently in effect — the May and August memos — apply to it regardless of the filing date. Unless a court grants a temporary block, the risk of denial without a prior request for evidence remains until the case is decided on the merits.

Can a new green card application be filed while the lawsuit against USCIS is ongoing

The lawsuit does not pause the intake or review of applications — both policies continue to apply to new filings the same way they apply to applications already submitted, until a court rules on a block.

What happens if the judge refuses to grant a temporary block on the policies

Then both policies — the May and August memos — would continue to apply to all cases until a final decision on the merits, and applicants would have to wait for the final verdict with no interim relief.

Is it worth giving up on adjustment of status and leaving for consular processing because of the new memos

It depends on the specific case: leaving the U.S. for consular processing itself carries the risk of getting stuck abroad due to administrative processing, and it can trigger a reentry bar of three or ten years. This step should be discussed with an attorney rather than treated as an automatic reaction to the new rules.

Can someone file a complaint or join the lawsuit against USCIS on their own

Beyond the main lawsuit, private law firms are preparing separate cases against the same May and August memos, which will affect a large number of adjustment of status applicants. Joining a specific case is a question for the attorneys handling it, not something that can be done directly through a government agency.

Does H-1B or L-1 status guarantee green card approval after the new memos

No. Even for holders of dual intent visas such as H-1B and L-1, exceptions exist, but dual intent alone is not enough for a favorable decision — the agency retains significant discretion, and decisions in these cases are subjective.

How long will the May and August memos remain in effect if a court finds them unlawful

If the plaintiffs succeed in getting the policies vacated under the Administrative Procedure Act, the agency would have to return to the longstanding practice that predated the memos — but that would only happen after the case is decided on the merits, not immediately after the lawsuit is filed.