USCIS Hit With Lawsuit Over Green Card Changes

{snip}

The lawsuit, filed October 5 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, challenges policies the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued in May and August. They affect adjustment of status, the process that allows eligible immigrants in the United States to apply for permanent residence without leaving the country to obtain an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad.

{snip}

The challengers argue that the two policies work together to change the rules for people already seeking permanent residence, and that someone who filed prior to their implementation could now be judged under the new standard and potentially denied without first receiving an opportunity to provide additional evidence addressing it.

The May policy directs USCIS officers to consider whether an applicant chose to seek a green card from within the United States rather than through consular processing abroad. Meanwhile, the August policy gives USCIS officers greater authority to deny some applications without first asking applicants for additional evidence or notifying them of an intended denial. It applies to new applications as well as applications that were pending when the policy took effect.

{snip}

Adjustment of status allows certain eligible immigrants already in the United States to apply for permanent residence without leaving the country. Consular processing, the alternative at issue in the lawsuit, generally requires applicants to complete the immigrant visa process through a U.S. Embassy or consulate abroad.

USCIS’s May 21 policy describes adjustment as an “extraordinary” form of discretionary relief. The policy does not require every adjustment applicant to leave the country, but the plaintiffs argue that it improperly makes some immigrants’ decision to use a process authorized by Congress count against them.

The August policy creates a separate issue for people with pending cases. The plaintiffs argue that someone who applied before the May change would have had no reason to submit evidence addressing the government’s new approach, but could now face denial without first receiving an opportunity to provide that evidence.

The administration takes a different view. The May memorandum emphasizes that adjustment of status is discretionary and says Congress generally expected certain immigrants admitted temporarily or paroled into the country to leave after the purpose of their stay was completed if they wanted to pursue permanent residence.

The process accounts for a significant share of legal immigration. In fiscal year 2024, 782,800 of roughly 1.36 million people who became lawful permanent residents, or 57 percent, did so through adjustment of status, according to DHS figures cited in the complaint.

{snip}

The plaintiffs argue that USCIS lacks authority to penalize eligible immigrants for choosing adjustment of status instead of consular processing.

{snip}

The lawsuit contains six claims, alleging that the policies exceed USCIS’s authority, improperly apply new standards to pending cases, are arbitrary and capricious, violate federal rulemaking requirements, conflict with existing immigration precedent, and violate due process. The court has not ruled on those claims.

The plaintiffs also point to possible practical consequences, including family separation and interruptions to employment and education if applicants must pursue their cases abroad.

{snip}

The plaintiffs are asking the court to temporarily block the policies while the case proceeds and ultimately strike them down. They also want the court to order USCIS to adjudicate affected applications under controlling Board of Immigration Appeals precedent.

The court has not yet decided their claims that the policies violate federal immigration law, the Administrative Procedure Act or the Constitution.

{snip}