USCIS Memo PM-602-0199, Explained Calmly: Why Adjustment of Status Has Always Been Discretionary — and What That Means for Your Case

8 min read · May 23, 2026

Legally reviewed by Attorney Elias G. Mendoza — WSBA #43857 · Arizona Bar #036789

USCIS PM-602-0199 (May 21, 2026) reaffirms long-standing law: adjustment under INA § 245(a) has always been a discretionary, totality-of-circumstances decision. Nothing in the statute changed; officers are simply being asked to spell out their analysis in writing. Cases built around the Mendez-Moralez equities have always held up, and continue to.

What actually changed

Nothing, legally. USCIS PM-602-0199, issued May 21, 2026, is a reaffirmation of law that has lived in INA § 245(a) since 1952. Adjustment of status — applying for your green card from inside the United States — has always been discretionary. The statute says the Attorney General "may" adjust an applicant's status, not "shall." Forty-eight years of Board of Immigration Appeals case law, three Supreme Court decisions, and every edition of the USCIS Policy Manual have repeated the same rule. The May 2026 memo simply asks adjudicators to write down the positive and negative factors they weighed when they grant or deny a case.

If you and your attorney have been preparing your case the way the Board of Immigration Appeals laid out in Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996) and Matter of Marin, 16 I&N Dec. 581 (BIA 1978), the memo asks you to do nothing differently. The clients we represent are already prepared for the totality-of-circumstances analysis, because we build the discretionary record from intake forward.

What the memo says in plain English

PM-602-0199 directs officers to:

Why discretion was always part of § 245(a)

The phrase "may, in his discretion" appears in the text of § 245(a) itself. From 1952 forward, every BIA panel that has addressed an adjustment denial has analyzed it as a discretionary decision. The Supreme Court confirmed it again in Patel v. Garland, holding that federal courts cannot even review discretionary AOS denials on the merits — the regime is so clearly discretionary that judicial review is statutorily barred for the discretionary component. The Mendez-Moralez factor list — family ties, length of residence, history of employment, property, business ties, value to the community, evidence of genuine rehabilitation, character — has been the test for thirty years.

What the memo signals is a stylistic shift, not a substantive one: officers are now expected to make the analysis explicit on the denial form. Cases prepared with a clean equities record have always done well under this standard. Cases prepared without one have always struggled. That has not changed.

The Mendez-Moralez factor inventory we already use

The first thing that happens at intake here is a written equities inventory. We map every positive factor on the Mendez-Moralez list:

Then we map the adverse side: overstays, prior immigration filings, criminal contacts, prior denials, prior misrepresentations, prior removal orders. Each adverse factor is paired in writing with its cure: the waiver, the remedy, the corroborating evidence, or the procedural posture that addresses it.

Adverse factors and the cures we deploy

The point of the Mendez-Moralez / Marin framework is not that adverse factors disqualify an applicant. It is that adverse factors must be outweighed by equities. Here is how the most common adverse factors are addressed inside an AOS file:

Note: a discussion sometimes arises about provisional unlawful-presence waivers. Those are tied to consular processing outside the United States and are not the right tool for an inside-the-U.S. adjustment file. For AOS, the relevant waiver vehicles are I-601 (most grounds of inadmissibility) and I-212 (consent to reapply after removal). We mention this only because confusion between the two pathways causes real delays.

Who is not affected by the memo

The carve-outs in the statute remain exactly where they were:

If your case sits in any of these categories, the May 2026 memo is largely a non-event for you.

Dual intent for H-1B, L, and O — what changed and what did not

The memo explicitly preserves dual intent: an H-1B, L, or O nonimmigrant can still pursue adjustment of status without that pursuit being held against the nonimmigrant petition. The substantive change is narrow: dual intent on its own is not a positive factor that outweighs everything else. The applicant still needs the equities packet. In practice, dual-intent applicants almost always have strong equities (employment history, tax compliance, employer-sponsored petition, often U.S.-citizen children) — so this is more a documentation point than a strategic one.

What a well-prepared AOS file looks like

By the time we file an I-485 here, the file already contains:

  1. A written admissibility memorandum naming every potential ground of inadmissibility, the supporting evidence for each one, and the waiver or strategy that addresses it. The client signs the memorandum.
  2. A Mendez-Moralez equities inventory with documentary support for every positive factor on the list.
  3. Hardship declarations from every qualifying U.S.-citizen or LPR relative who would suffer harm if the case is denied.
  4. Tax compliance for every year the client has earned income.
  5. Character references from employers, clergy, civic leaders, and long-term community members.
  6. Where any adverse factor exists, rehabilitation evidence and the cure filed concurrently: I-601 for inadmissibility waivers, I-212 for prior removals, I-864 with joint sponsors for public-charge analysis, vacatur orders for criminal contacts.
  7. A G-639 FOIA for the A-file completed before filing, so we know what the government knows.

That is the file that has always done well under § 245(a). It does well today. It will do well after the May 2026 memo, because the memo is asking officers to evaluate exactly the kind of file we have always built.

Closing reassurance

Adjustment of status has always been discretionary. The May 21, 2026 memo simply restates that. The clients we represent are already prepared for it, because we build the discretionary record from day one. If you are in the middle of an AOS process and you are worried about how the memo affects your case, schedule a consultation. A short conversation with an attorney who can see the underlying facts is the difference between a guess and a plan.

Frequently asked questions

Does this memo mean my marriage-based green card case is harder now?

No. The legal standard for marriage-based adjustment has not changed. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are statutorily shielded by INA § 245(a) and (c)(2) from most of the bars discussed in the memo, and a well-documented bona-fide marriage with hardship declarations and an equities packet has always done well under the totality-of-circumstances test. What the memo asks for is exactly the kind of record we build for every marriage case.

Was my pending I-485 a discretionary decision before May 21, 2026?

Yes. INA § 245(a) has used the phrase "may, in his discretion" since 1952, and the BIA has analyzed every adjustment denial as a discretionary decision since at least Matter of Marin in 1978. The memo is a reaffirmation, not a rule change.

Does PM-602-0199 affect refugee, asylee, VAWA, U, or T adjustments?

Largely no. INA § 209(a)(2) (refugees and asylees), § 245(a)/(c) (VAWA), § 245(h) (SIJS), § 245(m) (U-visa), HRIFA, NACARA, and NDAA § 7611 SIV adjustments all have their own statutory frameworks that the memo expressly preserves. If your case runs through one of those provisions, the discretionary framework either does not apply or applies in a narrower form.

I have an old overstay — does the memo's reference to Matter of Blas hurt my case?

Matter of Blas has been BIA law since 1974 — the memo is not creating a new rule. For immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, the statute itself in INA § 245(a) and (c)(2) shields most of the overstay analysis. For other categories, an overstay is one factor among many that an equities binder and hardship declarations are designed to address.

What can I do right now to strengthen my file?

Three things: (1) gather every tax return you have filed for every year you have earned U.S. income, including ITIN returns; (2) collect character-reference letters from employers, clergy, teachers, coaches, and long-term community contacts; (3) make a written list of every entry and exit from the United States and every prior immigration filing. That inventory is the spine of a Mendez-Moralez equities packet.

I have an H-1B and a pending I-485 — does dual intent still protect me?

Yes. The memo expressly preserves dual intent for H-1B, L, and O nonimmigrants. The only refinement is that dual intent alone is not a positive equity that outweighs everything else; the equities still need to be on the record. In practice, employer-sponsored dual-intent applicants almost always have those equities — strong employment history, tax compliance, U.S. ties.

If my case is denied as a matter of discretion, what happens next?

The memo requires officers to issue a written positive/negative factor analysis with every discretionary denial. That written analysis matters: it can be challenged through a motion to reopen or reconsider, addressed in a renewed application in removal proceedings, or used as the roadmap for a refiled package that addresses the negative factors directly. Discretionary denials are not the end of the case.

Do I need a lawyer to file an adjustment of status after this memo?

The decision is yours. What we will say is that the kind of record the memo asks officers to evaluate — a Mendez-Moralez equities inventory with cures for every adverse factor — is the kind of record an experienced immigration attorney builds as a matter of routine. If you would like a free conversation about what your equities packet would look like, schedule a consultation.

Legal sources