USCIS Memo PM-602-0199: Why the Green Card Just Became an Act of Grace

Last week USCIS released a memo that has barely registered in the European emigration scene yet. Inside the U.S. immigration bar, on the other hand, it dropped jaws within hours. The short version: if you are temporarily in the United States and want a green card, you are now expected to return to your home country and apply from there. Adjustment of Status, the process of converting to permanent residency from inside the U.S., is being reframed by USCIS as an “extraordinary act of administrative grace.”

It sounds like a headline. It is one. But the truth, as so often, is more nuanced than the headline suggests.

What Actually Happened

On 21 May 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199. The title alone is the message: “Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process.”

The next day, the agency followed up with an official USCIS press release, announcing that green cards inside the United States would now only be granted in “extraordinary circumstances.”

Here is the first thing to understand: the memo and the press release do not say the same thing. The press release is significantly sharper than the actual memo. The phrase “only in extraordinary circumstances” appears in the press release. In the operative text of the memo itself, that exact framing is absent. The entire U.S. immigration bar flagged this disconnect within 24 hours.

What the memo actually does: it changes neither the statute nor the regulations. It instructs USCIS officers to apply the existing discretionary component of Section 245 of the INA far more aggressively. Two clauses do the real work.

First: simply “failing to depart as expected” is now explicitly elevated to a negative discretionary factor, particularly when the continued presence is tied to an intention to live permanently in the United States. Which is precisely what millions of people are doing.

Second: a clean record is no longer enough. The memo explicitly states that “the absence of adverse factors, by itself, does not demonstrate such unusual or outstanding equities.” Translated: you now have to affirmatively show why you deserve the green card, not merely that you have given no reason to be refused.

Who Gets Hit Hardest: E-2 and Other Single-Intent Categories

The U.S. distinction between dual-intent and single-intent visas has just become painfully relevant.

H-1B and L-1 are dual-intent visas. Holders are legally permitted to have the intent to remain permanently. These categories are largely shielded from the new framework.

E-2, F-1, B-1/B-2, TN, and O-1 are single-intent or non-immigrant-intent. Anyone admitted in these categories must formally have the intent to leave again. This is exactly the profile the memo targets. The E-2 investor who applies for a green card from inside the United States is precisely the case the “failure to depart” language is designed to flag.

This matters to our clientele because E-2 is by far the most important investor visa for European nationals. EB-5, the actual green-card investor programme, is a different category and not directly affected by the memo. But at roughly USD 800,000 minimum investment in a targeted employment area, EB-5 is not an obvious option for every client either.

The Open Questions

What the memo does not say is at least as important as what it does say.

Does the memo apply to pending applications? USCIS has not addressed this. The consensus in the bar is that memos of this type bind the officer at the moment of decision, not at the moment of filing. Practically: every I-485 already filed will be decided under the new framework. With everything that implies. More RFEs (Requests for Evidence), more NOIDs (Notices of Intent to Deny), longer processing, higher denial rates.

Will specific categories be exempted? Also open. Immediate Relatives of U.S. citizens (spouses and minor children) still enjoy statutory protections, but how far that carries inside the discretionary analysis will only become clear over the coming months.

What happens to children whose CSPA (Child Status Protection Act) age was locked by an I-485 filing, but who have aged out in the meantime? This is the most painful question. Withdrawing a pending I-485 in favour of consular processing can re-open the CSPA calculation and turn previously protected children into legal adults overnight. Every individual case has to be recalculated. Nothing here can be rushed.

What We Are Telling Clients

Our U.S. immigration counsel is, as expected, cautious and measured. The line goes like this:

First: withdraw nothing. Pending applications stay pending until the situation clarifies. Litigation against the memo is effectively a certainty. USCIS will be forced to issue follow-up guidance.

Second: build equities actively. Every pending I-485 should be reinforced with additional material. Ties to the U.S., economic contribution, family circumstances, hardship, employer and community affidavits. The old standard (clean record, eligibility met, done) is no longer sufficient.

Third: evaluate consular processing as a backup, but do not switch prematurely. Moving from I-485 to consular processing means stepping into an entirely different risk landscape. Visa Bulletin retrogression, potential 212(a)(9)(B) overstay bars, CSPA recalculation, waiting periods in the home country, separated families.

The Bigger Lesson

Anyone who has read my work for any length of time knows the refrain: diversify your residencies. Never just one country. Never just one plan. Never one system you depend on completely. What we are seeing in the United States right now is not a surprise. Political mood shifts can rewrite the rules overnight, even in countries widely regarded as rule-of-law-stable.

The United States remains an attractive destination for many of our clients. Quality of life, economic dynamism, property rights, entrepreneurial freedom. But the United States as a single Plan B was never the right strategy. The new memo makes that more obvious than ever.

Anyone seriously pursuing a U.S. plan should be running, in parallel:

• A second residency outside the United States. Ideally in a jurisdiction without worldwide income taxation or with a workable non-dom regime.
• A second citizenship in development. Through descent, naturalisation, or investment.
• Jurisdictionally diversified assets. Not just bank accounts. Real estate, holding structures, insurance solutions, spread across multiple legal systems.

None of this is new. It is what we do at STM Corporate Group every day. Others talk. We get it done.

How This Plays Out From Here

Until USCIS issues follow-up guidance and the first court decisions start to land, the playbook is: stay calm, reinforce the files, keep options open. For existing mandates, we are coordinating the next steps directly with our U.S. counsel. Anyone affected who is not sure what this means for their specific case should reach out before they react reflexively.

Further reading for those who want the legal detail:

The original USCIS memo PM-602-0199 PDF is available directly from the USCIS website. A solid employer-side and investor-side breakdown is provided in the WR Immigration Employer Advisory on the memo.

We are watching this closely.

Carpe Diem, Sebastian