A new USCIS policy memo announced last Friday would push many people seeking green cards to use consular processing in their home countries instead of applying from within the United States—an approach tied to existing pause and travel restrictions affecting d
On May 27, 2026, the question gripping many families in the United States was not whether they wanted to apply for a green card—it was whether, if they did, the process would still let them stay.
A policy change released by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which oversees the program, would shift the green card application pathway. The memo. discussed on The Excerpt podcast on Wednesday. May 27. 2026. says many people who are currently able to apply from inside the United States would instead be required to return to their host countries for consular processing before applying.
The disruption is potentially large. Every year, about one million individuals become green card holders—legal permanent residents—in the United States. Roughly half of them come from outside the United States. while the other half are able to get green cards within the country through a process called adjustment of status. The memo in question would apply to the group of people who are already in the United States and are eligible to use a statutory path that lets them pursue a green card here.
That in-country pathway traces back to 1952, when Congress created section INA 245A through the Immigration and Nationality Act. The concept is straightforward: people admitted. inspected. and paroled into the United States can pursue the green card process without having to go abroad. Since then, Congress amended the statute around 20 times to allow additional individuals to pursue green cards within the country.
But this new memo changes the practical stakes for those who have been living and building their lives in the U.S.
The shift arrives as other nationality-based restrictions already limit visa processing and adjudication. For people abroad. the Department of State has implemented a current pause on visa processing or final adjudication for people from 75 countries. Within the United States, USCIS has an administrative pause on processing and ultimate adjudication for individuals from 39 countries. There are also travel restrictions tied to those 39 countries.
Taken together, Orozco described the policy as “piling onto” existing restrictions. The memo would require people to leave the United States for consular processing—where. he said. consular officers have greater discretion to deny cases—while leaving applicants without clear options if their applications cannot be processed due to the pauses or other limits tied to public charge restrictions.
That means the people who could have applied from inside the U.S. may instead be forced into a route where their cases can be delayed or blocked. Orozco said the policy puts applicants in a “very difficult position” because they may not know how to move forward. especially when the restrictions are nationality-based and when public charge limits are broader to 75 countries.
Green card eligibility itself is not one-size-fits-all, and the memo’s reach appears to depend heavily on how much discretion USCIS uses.
Orozco laid out three broad categories of people who generally apply for green cards: family-based, employment-based, and humanitarian-based. Family-based immigration includes immediate relatives who can apply within the United States. as well as family preference categories for more distant relatives—some of which can apply within the United States while more apply from abroad.
Employment-based routes include highly skilled workers through an H1B visa, as well as other skilled worker pathways such as intra-company transferees. Orozco said the employment-based category is smaller than family-based but still the second-largest.
Humanitarian-based cases can include survivors of crime, survivors of trafficking, and abandoned, abused, or neglected children. Orozco said humanitarian-based visas also make a significant portion, even though the visas are generally capped.
Refugees and asylees, however, are generally not routed through consular processing, according to Orozco. He said refugees have already been vetted and enter the United States as refugees. after which they can apply for a green card within a year. He also argued it would be “credibly unjustified” to require someone to return to the country of birth they applied for refugee status from.
Asylees, he said, apply for asylum within the United States. If someone is in the U.S., undocumented, and cannot go back home due to fear of persecution and then obtains asylum, there is a process to apply for a green card within the United States.
Orozco said the memo discussed on the podcast appears to envision that refugees and asylees are not covered, but he also stressed that the memo “doesn’t have very clear categories” for who is excluded. That uncertainty, he said, creates confusion over who is “in and who’s out.”
The memo also raises a practical question for people on non-immigrant pathways: what does it mean when USCIS says applicants will not be allowed to apply for green cards from within the U.S. except in “extraordinary circumstances”?
Dana Taylor asked whether that language would apply to a person with an H1B job. a mother caring for an American child. or someone enrolled in and paying for college. Orozco said USCIS had not defined these scenarios. He noted that while USCIS’s press release references “extraordinary circumstances,” the policy memo itself does not. Instead, he said the memo calls the process of getting a green card within the United States an extraordinary act.
He added that confusion extends to how exemptions might work in practice. A USCIS spokesperson. he said. had mentioned that individuals providing an economic benefit to the country might be exempted. and that national security components or concerns could also factor in. But Orozco said it was not clear how exemptions would be implemented.
He pointed to the mismatch between travel exceptions and outcomes. For individuals abroad who are facing travel restrictions. he said there were announced exceptions—particularly around doctors—but he said those exceptions have not been clearly implemented in a way that provides assurance to applicants.
For people worried about delays and capacity, Taylor asked whether the administration had beefed up consular staffing or streamlined processes to prevent a backlog after routing green card applications through consulates.
Orozco answered that it had not. He said the Department of State had undergone restructuring and that adjudication abroad is slower, but he said there had not been an announcement matching that reality with added resources to handle the potential shift.
In Orozco’s account, the memo fits into a broader pattern. When asked about the administration’s goal. he described the rationale as an interpretation of law: that the ability to pursue a green card from within the United States should be treated as an extraordinary event. and that administrative grace should be granted so people can still apply in-country.
He also emphasized what he said Congress had already done: created the in-country pathway in 1952 and reaffirmed it through amendments around 20 times. Orozco said the memo attempts to attach a preference for consular processing and to force people to leave the United States.
The consequences, he argued, are not just bureaucratic. If people are forced to go abroad. he said they may no longer be eligible to obtain the green card through consular processing due to laws affecting eligibility once they leave. He cited unlawful presence as one example: family members petitioning through U.S. citizens who have unlawful presence might be subject to a bar. and would then need to request a hardship waiver—though. he said. they may not be eligible for that waiver.
That uncertainty, he said, could shift behavior in ways that create more exposure to enforcement inside the United States. He said the policy could make people fearful of trying to get a green card in the United States. It could also potentially increase the number of people subject to immigration enforcement if their applications are denied under the policy or if they stop pursuing green cards because of fear of what the government might require.
The through-line in the discussion was uncertainty—built not only into the process changes but into the memo’s discretionary framing.
Orozco described the policy as an “attack” on the integrity of the immigration system. saying people who follow the rules and are eligible under existing laws now face uncertainty not because Congress changed the law. but because the administration is adopting a novel interpretation through the memo. He said litigation is expected against the policy. but he warned that the damage to trust inside the system could take a long time to repair.
By the end of the conversation, the immediate policy details were no longer abstract. The memo’s stated direction—moving applicants out of the United States and into consular processing—touches a timeline that many families are already living on: studying. working. and building homes in America while trying to find a legal path to permanence.
For now. Orozco said. the key confusion remains unresolved: the memo’s categories are unclear. exemptions are vague. and the implementation details—especially for extraordinary circumstances—are still not fully defined. What has changed. for applicants. is the pressure of deciding whether “eligible” still means “practical. ” and whether staying in the country that already provided their chance to apply will remain possible at all.
green card USCIS consular processing adjustment of status immigration policy INA 245A public charge H1B asylum refugees Department of State visa pause legal permanent residence