A coalition of immigrant families, workers, university educators, and advocacy groups filed a federal lawsuit on 5 October 2026 challenging two US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies that plaintiffs say could compel eligible green card applicants to leave the United States to pursue permanent residence — separating them from their families and employment in the process.

The case, American Association of University Professors et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., targets policies issued by USCIS in May and August that altered how the agency processes adjustment of status applications — the pathway that allows eligible immigrants already living in the US to seek lawful permanent residence without having to apply at a US consulate abroad. The case remains pending, and no court has yet ruled on whether the challenged policies are unlawful.

What the Two Policies Change

Under the May policy, according to the lawsuit, USCIS officers are directed to treat an applicant's choice to pursue permanent residence from within the United States — rather than through consular processing abroad — as a negative discretionary factor. Plaintiffs say applicants must demonstrate 'unusual or even outstanding' circumstances to overcome that negative weighting, a bar they describe as an unexplained and legally unsupported departure from decades of established practice.

The August policy permits USCIS officers, in certain circumstances, to deny applications outright without first offering applicants a chance to submit additional evidence. Critically, the challengers allege this policy applies retroactively to applications that were already pending when it was issued — raising acute concerns among those who filed under earlier, more accommodating procedures.

Who Filed the Lawsuit and Why

The plaintiffs include the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and its chapters at Harvard University and Boston University; the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and two of its affiliates; Americans for Immigrant Justice; and six individual green card applicants pursuing permanent residence through both family and employment pathways. They are represented by Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and Colombo & Hurd.

Leslie Dellon, a senior attorney for business immigration at the American Immigration Council, said the new policies mark 'a major shift with very real consequences,' including possible family separation, job disruption, and lengthy waits abroad for consular appointments. 'For decades, people who met the requirements to apply for a green card from inside the United States were able to do so without having that choice count against them,' Dellon said.

The Legal Argument at the Core

The plaintiffs are asking the court to block and ultimately set aside both policies, and to require USCIS to adjudicate affected applications under what they contend is controlling legal precedent. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, argued that Congress had expressly established a process allowing eligible immigrants already in the country to seek permanent residence without uprooting their lives. 'The executive branch cannot rewrite that system and then treat people's lawful actions as a reason to deny them said permanent residency,' Perryman said.

Broader Implications for Immigrants

Legal observers note the lawsuit could carry significant consequences beyond the named plaintiffs. Employment- and family-based immigrants who are legally present in the US and eligible to adjust their status could all be affected if the policies remain in force. The organisations involved represent a wide cross-section — educators, researchers, healthcare workers, and service-sector employees — underscoring the scale of potential impact.

This comes amid broader scrutiny of executive-branch immigration policy, with advocacy groups increasingly turning to the courts to challenge agency rule changes that were not subject to formal notice-and-comment rulemaking. How the court rules could set precedent for how USCIS exercises discretion in adjustment-of-status cases going forward.