The Trump administration is signaling a tougher approach to legal immigration with a new policy that could force more green card applicants to leave the country while their cases are processed abroad.
For decades, many immigrants who qualified for permanent residency through marriage, family sponsorship or employment have been able to complete the process while remaining in the United States through what’s known as “adjustment of status.”
Now, immigration attorneys say a new federal policy memo suggests immigration officials could more aggressively deny those applications — particularly for people who overstayed visas or spent years out of legal status.
In some cases, applicants could be required to leave the country and complete the green card process through a U.S. consulate abroad before returning.
“This new policy is the government’s attempt to try to tell people that if you overstay your visa, then you should not plan on later applying for residency within the United States,” said Minnesota immigration attorney David Wilson. “That we want to force you back to your country, touch the ground there, and go back before the embassy.”
The memo does not affect people renewing existing green cards. Attorneys say the biggest uncertainty is how aggressively immigration officials will apply the guidance in practice.
Wilson said the policy appears aimed at immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for years while navigating complicated immigration backlogs or waiting for other legal pathways to open.
“They're targeting people who have been here for some time and have fallen out of status,” Wilson said. “Maybe, for example, they had applied for asylum, but then in the intervening five years, while they’re waiting for an asylum interview, they have married someone and started raising a family and have a different way of establishing their status in the United States.”
The Trump administration says the policy is intended to reinforce legal immigration pathways and ensure immigration officers properly exercise discretion when deciding permanent residency applications.
But attorneys and legal scholars say the memo could create a more subjective review process.
“They’ve already been sending out some requests for evidence in some cases where they’re asking people, ‘well, what’s your education? What’s your employment currently? Are you current on your taxes? Do you speak English?’” Wilson said. “What it really seems to suggest [is] this is a jaded version of ‘show me you’re worthy.’”
Ana Pottratz Acosta, a visiting professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said the memo itself does not rewrite immigration law, but it could significantly change how immigration officers interpret and apply existing rules.
“In reading through the memo it appears to contradict what is actually stated in the statute, and that is what I think makes it vulnerable to a legal challenge,” Pottratz Acosta said.
She said adjustment of status has been a standard part of U.S. immigration law since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 established the country’s modern immigration framework.
“The group of people that appear to be most impacted would be individuals who are what are called immediate relatives,” she said, including spouses, parents and minor children of U.S. citizens who entered legally but later overstayed visas.
Pottratz Acosta said many immigrants working legally in the U.S. on visas such as H-1Bs likely will not see major, immediate changes because immigration law already recognizes “dual intent” — allowing someone to work temporarily while also pursuing permanent residency.
Still, she warned the policy could discourage people from applying for legal status altogether.
“It appears as though the intention of this, more than anything, is to discourage people who would otherwise be eligible to apply for permanent residence through adjustment of status from taking advantage of that pathway under the law,” she said.
The change could also affect employers in Minnesota that rely on highly skilled immigrant workers, particularly in health care, medical research and technology.
“We're already starting to see this,” Pottratz Acosta said. “High-skilled workers are going to say, ‘Working in the U.S. at this point is more trouble than it's worth. I'm going to go to Canada, I'm going to go to the European Union, or go to Australia.’”
Attorneys say one of the biggest risks with requiring applicants to process cases abroad is uncertainty. Someone who leaves the country for a consular interview could face delays or visa denials with little opportunity to appeal.
“There’s no guarantee that you're going to get your visa,” Pottratz Acosta said. “If your visa is denied, you would be permanently stuck outside of the United States.”
Even so, both attorneys cautioned against panic.
“I would caution people to just take a deep breath, talk to your lawyer, and let's wait and see how this actually looks in practice,” Pottratz Acosta said.
Wilson agreed, saying large immigration policy announcements are often broader in rhetoric than in implementation.
“It’s very common for leadership in immigration contexts to say big ideas and big themes,” Wilson said. “But then the actual implementation is significantly smaller in scale, much more narrowly tailored, and done in a way that maybe has a fighting chance of withstanding legal scrutiny.”
Both attorneys expect legal challenges if the administration attempts to broadly restrict adjustment-of-status applications.
For now, they encourage immigrants considering applying for permanent residency to seek legal guidance and closely monitor how the policy unfolds in the coming months.