On October 5, 2026, academic associations, labor organizations, an immigrant-rights organization, and individual applicants filed a lawsuit challenging two U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies affecting adjustment-of-status applications.
The lawsuit—American Association of University Professors, et al. v. Mullin, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-14527 (D. Mass.)—challenges USCIS’s May 21, 2026 policy directing officers to treat an applicant’s pursuit of adjustment of status in the United States rather than consular processing abroad as an adverse discretionary factor. It also challenges a newer, August 5, 2026 policy permitting USCIS officers in specified circumstances to deny benefit requests without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). Both policies remain in effect.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, titled “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 policy instructs officers to treat an applicant’s decision to pursue adjustment in the United States rather than consular processing abroad as an adverse discretionary factor. On August 5, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Alert PA-2026-05, titled “Evidence, Requests for Evidence, and Notices of Intent to Deny,” which permits officers in certain circumstances to deny a benefit request without first issuing an RFE or NOID.
The plaintiffs contend that the adjustment-of-status policy conflicts with the framework Congress established in Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 245 and refined through decades of amendments. According to the complaint, Congress created adjustment of status to allow eligible noncitizens to obtain permanent residence without departing the United States and repeatedly modified the statute by adding eligibility rules, bars, exceptions, and accommodations for family-based and employment-based applicants. The complaint argues that Congress never established a general preference for consular processing or required otherwise eligible applicants to leave the United States to obtain permanent residence.
The complaint also alleges that the policy conflicts with longstanding Board of Immigration Appeals precedent governing adjustment discretion. According to the plaintiffs, that precedent generally provides that adjustment ordinarily should be granted absent adverse factors, that significant family relationships may constitute strong positive equities, and that a showing of “unusual or outstanding equities” is generally reserved for cases involving particularly serious adverse considerations. The plaintiffs contend that the May 2026 policy departs from those principles by assigning adverse weight to an applicant’s decision to pursue adjustment rather than consular processing.
The lawsuit places particular emphasis on the interaction between the two policies. The plaintiffs argue that applicants who filed before the May policy may now be evaluated under a new discretionary framework while the August policy may permit USCIS to deny their applications without first giving them an opportunity to submit evidence addressing that framework.
The plaintiffs assert claims under the INA, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and the doctrine requiring agencies to follow their governing rules and precedents. They have asked the court to suspend the policies during the litigation and ultimately to declare them unlawful and set them aside. The court has not yet decided these claims.
At its core, the lawsuit challenges USCIS’s view that adjustment of status should be treated as an extraordinary form of relief when consular processing is available. The addition of the August 2026 denial policy broadens the dispute beyond substantive standards to questions of process and the treatment of pending applications filed before the policy changes occurred. The court’s response may therefore influence both the future scope of adjustment discretion and the procedures USCIS uses when adjudicating benefit requests.
For a deeper discussion on the above, please reach out to your Vialto Partners point of contact, or alternatively:
Angelo A. Paparelli
Partner, Vialto Law (US) LLP
Yulina Wang
Manager, Vialto Partners LLP
Simply follow our Vialto Alerts page on LinkedIn and posts will be displayed on your feed. To ensure you don’t miss one, once you’re on our LinkedIn page, click on the bell icon under the banner image to manage your notifications.
Further information on Vialto can be found here: www.vialtopartners.com
Vialto Partners (“Vialto”) refers to wholly owned subsidiaries of CD&R Galaxy UK OpCo Limited as well as the other members of the Vialto Partners global network. The information contained in this document is for general guidance on matters of interest only. Vialto is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. All information is provided “as is”, with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event will Vialto, its related entities, or the agents or employees thereof be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the information in this document or for any consequential, special or similar damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
© 2026 Vialto Partners. All rights reserved.