For many immigrants, applying for a green card means planning around family responsibilities, employment, and an uncertain processing timeline. A new federal lawsuit challenges two USCIS policies that could make that process more difficult for people seeking permanent residence while living in the United States.
Filed on October 5 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, American Association of University Professors v. Mullin was brought by university faculty organizations, labor unions, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and six individual applicants. The plaintiffs are challenging policies issued in May and August 2026 concerning adjustment of status and the opportunity to submit additional evidence before a denial.
What is adjustment of status?
Adjustment of status allows eligible individuals already in the United States to apply for lawful permanent residence without completing the immigrant visa process at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad.
Eligibility depends on the applicant's circumstances and immigration category. Meeting the legal requirements also does not necessarily guarantee approval, because adjustment under the provision at issue involves a discretionary decision.
The dispute concerns how USCIS exercises that discretion and whether its new policies place restrictions on a process Congress authorized.
The two policies being challenged
The May policy characterizes adjustment of status as an extraordinary form of relief. According to the plaintiffs, it directs officers to treat an applicant's decision to seek permanent residence here, rather than pursue consular processing abroad, as a negative factor requiring substantial favorable considerations to overcome.
The August policy addresses requests for evidence and notices of intent to deny. These notices can give applicants an opportunity to supply missing information or respond to concerns before USCIS makes a final decision. The plaintiffs argue that the revised policy permits denials without that opportunity, including in cases filed before the new guidance existed.
Their concern is how the policies operate together: an applicant could face a new discretionary standard without first having a meaningful chance to provide evidence addressing it.
What the plaintiffs argue
The complaint alleges that USCIS exceeded its statutory authority, failed to follow required rulemaking procedures, departed from binding agency requirements and precedent, and improperly applied new standards to pending applications. It also raises a constitutional due process claim.
One underlying question is whether USCIS may count an otherwise eligible applicant's use of adjustment of status against that person when Congress created the procedure as a means of obtaining permanent residence from within the United States. These are the plaintiffs' legal arguments, not findings by the court.
USCIS's position
USCIS maintains that its approach reflects longstanding immigration law and the discretionary nature of adjustment of status. In its public announcement, the agency stated that officers should consider relevant circumstances individually and described consular processing as the ordinary route for certain people admitted temporarily who later seek permanent residence.
The government therefore presents the policy as a return to the intended operation of immigration law. The plaintiffs contend that it creates an unauthorized obstacle to an established statutory process. The court will have to evaluate those competing positions.
Why the case matters
The complaint describes consequences that extend beyond paperwork. Individual plaintiffs identify concerns about separation from children, interruption of employment, and uncertainty about returning to the United States.
According to the complaint, Miriam Esther Moreno Coto has three U.S. citizen children, including a son with autism whose care she oversees. She alleges that an officer repeatedly questioned her decision to apply in the United States rather than through a consulate abroad. Her application remained pending when the lawsuit was filed.
The plaintiffs seek temporary and permanent relief blocking the policies, an order setting them aside, and adjudication of affected applications consistent with controlling precedent.
What applicants should understand now
Filing a lawsuit does not itself suspend a government policy or guarantee approval of an individual application. The materials reviewed for this post do not identify a court ruling resolving the challenge.
Applicants should continue to attend scheduled interviews, respond to USCIS notices, and observe filing deadlines. Anyone with a pending case should discuss with counsel whether the record adequately addresses both eligibility and the reasons supporting a favorable exercise of discretion.
At Saluja Law, we understand that uncertainty in an immigration case affects the entire family. This lawsuit warrants close attention, but decisions about a particular application should remain grounded in that applicant's circumstances and the guidance and court orders in effect at the time.
This post provides general information and does not constitute legal advice.