Status as of October 11, 2026: The challenged USCIS policies remain in effect. No court order has blocked them. Filing the lawsuit does not pause USCIS adjudications or provide applicants automatic protection.
On October 5, 2026, a coalition of foreign nationals, labor unions, and organizations filed American Association of University Professors et al. v. Mullin, No. 1:26-cv-14527, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case challenges two USCIS policies affecting adjustment of status applications, including pending Form I-485 cases.
The dispute matters to family-based green card applicants, employment-based applicants, including H-1B and L-1 workers, and employers sponsoring foreign talent. The potential consequences of an adverse decision include family separation, interrupted education, employment loss, and career disruption.
What the Lawsuit Challenges
The complaint contests two USCIS policies that took effect immediately and apply to applications already pending as well as new filings.
1. Adjustment-of-status memorandum PM-602-0199
Issued May 21, 2026, PM-602-0199 describes adjustment of status as an “extraordinary” departure from the regular consular visa process. It directs officers to treat an applicant’s decision to seek a green card in the United States, rather than pursue consular processing abroad, as a negative discretionary factor.
Under the memo, an applicant may need to show “unusual or even outstanding” countervailing equities to overcome that factor. The memo calls for consideration of the totality of the circumstances. It also states that maintaining lawful status in a dual-intent category, by itself, is not enough to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.
2. Policy Alert PA-2026-05
Issued August 5, 2026, PA-2026-05 addresses evidence, Requests for Evidence (RFEs), and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs). It gives officers discretion to deny a benefit request without first issuing an RFE or NOID in certain circumstances, including when required initial evidence is missing or the record does not establish eligibility.
Because it applies to pending cases, an applicant may face the new adjustment-of-status standard without having prepared evidence specifically addressing it when the application was filed, and may not receive an opportunity to supplement the record before denial.
The legal claims and requested relief
The plaintiffs allege violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including that USCIS exceeded its statutory authority, failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously. They also allege a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. These are claims in a complaint, not findings by the court.
The plaintiffs include the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Americans for Immigrant Justice. Counsel includes the American Immigration Council, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Democracy Forward, and Colombo & Hurd, PL. The filed complaint describes the claims and relief sought.
Who May Be Affected
The policies and lawsuit have particular relevance to:
- Family-based applicants, including eligible spouses and parents of U.S. citizens, whose ability to seek adjustment may be affected by a discretionary assessment.
- Employment-based applicants, including H-1B and L-1 workers, and others pursuing permanent residence through an employer or an eligible self-petition.
- Unions and their members, including workers and academics seeking adjustment or supporting family members who have pending cases.
- Legal services providers, which may need to devote additional time and resources to reviewing, documenting, and responding to cases affected by the policies.
- Employers and educational institutions, which may face disruption if sponsored workers or faculty must leave the United States or lose work authorization.
Consular processing can require an applicant to leave the United States and wait abroad for a visa decision. The State Department’s separate worldwide immigrant-visa interview pause remains in effect, with the situation varying by post. That uncertainty compounds the risk of treating consular processing as a predictable alternative. Departure can lead to family separation, lost employment, interrupted study, career harm, or loss of sponsored employment if an applicant cannot return promptly.
What the Lawsuit Asks the Court to Do
The plaintiffs ask for a preliminary injunction to temporarily block both USCIS policies while the case proceeds. They also seek a final order vacating and permanently enjoining the policies, along with relief directing adjudication consistent with governing precedent.
The court has not granted that relief as of October 11, 2026. The available case docket shows the lawsuit remains ongoing. The requested injunction is temporary relief; it is not a final ruling on whether the policies are lawful.
What Has Not Changed
The lawsuit does not eliminate existing statutory protections or change H-1B rules by itself.
- AC21 portability under INA § 204(j) remains a statutory protection. Eligible employment-based applicants may, subject to statutory requirements, qualify to change jobs or employers when the new position is in the same or a similar occupational classification and the adjustment application has been pending for at least 180 days. The USCIS memo did not rescind this protection. However, a discretionary denial of a pending I-485 would end portability based on that pending application.
- H-1B dual intent remains. H-1B status continues to permit a worker to pursue permanent residence without that intent alone preventing H-1B classification. The adjustment memo nevertheless says lawful status in a dual-intent category, by itself, is insufficient to establish favorable discretion on an adjustment application.
These rules have distinct requirements. An H-1B visa 2026 case involving a pending green card application requires review of both the employee’s nonimmigrant status and the adjustment record.
Practical Steps While the Policies Remain in Effect
Applicants and employers should plan based on the policies currently in force, not on the possibility that the lawsuit will succeed.
- Document positive equities. Preserve evidence of family relationships and responsibilities, length of residence, authorized employment, tax compliance, education, community ties, and other facts relevant to an individualized discretionary review. The appropriate evidence depends on the case.
- Avoid status gaps and unauthorized employment. Track expiration dates, work authorization, and any required extension or change-of-status filings. A pending I-485 does not automatically authorize employment or preserve every underlying status.
- Assess travel and Advance Parole carefully. Do not assume that travel is safe because an Advance Parole document has been issued. Parole is not admission in the underlying nonimmigrant classification and can terminate underlying nonimmigrant status. The consequences depend on the applicant’s history and status; obtain legal advice before departing.
- File complete applications. Submit required initial evidence and supporting documentation with each filing. PA-2026-05 permits denials without first providing an RFE or NOID in certain situations.
- Respond immediately to USCIS notices. Track delivery and response deadlines. A late, incomplete, or misdirected response may have serious consequences.
- Coordinate with counsel. Applicants should review pending filings, travel plans, and status strategies with counsel. Employers should coordinate with their HR teams and an experienced business immigration attorney when a sponsored employee’s work authorization or permanent residence may be affected.
Why Litigation Timing Matters
The complaint does not suspend either policy. USCIS may continue applying PM-602-0199 and PA-2026-05 unless and until a court orders otherwise. A preliminary injunction, if granted, would temporarily restrict policy implementation while litigation continues. It would not itself resolve every legal claim or guarantee approval of any individual green card application.
Applicants should therefore avoid delaying case preparation while waiting for a court decision. Employers should assess workforce-continuity risks, sponsorship timelines, and the documentation available for affected employees. Because court proceedings and agency guidance can change, verify the case status and applicable USCIS requirements before taking action.
Speak With an Immigration Lawyer About Your Case
Blasingame Law LLC provides immigration guidance to individuals, families, employers, and HR teams. The firm brings more than thirty years of experience in corporate and private practice and takes a personalized approach to the legal and practical issues each case presents.
If you have a pending adjustment application, plan to file, or sponsor an employee seeking permanent residence, consult an experienced immigration lawyer and, where relevant, a business immigration attorney to assess your options. Contact Blasingame Law LLC to discuss your circumstances.
