USCIS Adjustment of Status Memo for Bellevue Workers and Employers

On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, titled "Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process." USCIS publicly announced the policy in a May 22, 2026 news release stating that adjustment of status would be granted only in extraordinary circumstances.

The memo does not eliminate Form I-485 or remove the statutory authority that allows eligible applicants to adjust status inside the United States. Adjustment of status remains available under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

What the memo does is signal a shift in how USCIS may evaluate certain I-485 applications going forward. Adjudicators may give greater weight to discretionary factors when reviewing whether to approve an adjustment application, even when the applicant meets all statutory eligibility requirements. For Bellevue-area workers in H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN, and F-1 status, and for employers sponsoring foreign workers through employment-based green card categories, this means the margin for error in case preparation and status maintenance may be narrower than before.

Bellevue and the Eastside are home to many technology, business, and professional workers who may rely on employment-based immigration pathways, including H-1B status, PERM labor certification, I-140 petitions, and adjustment of status.

The memo matters to this population because a significant share of employment-based green card applicants file Form I-485 (adjustment of status) rather than pursuing consular processing at a U.S. embassy abroad. For workers already inside the United States on valid nonimmigrant status, adjustment of status has historically been the standard approach. The memo reframes that approach as discretionary, which may affect how USCIS evaluates pending and future applications.

Statutory eligibility for adjustment of status means the applicant has a valid immigrant visa petition (such as an approved I-140), a visa number available under the Visa Bulletin, admissibility to the United States, and compliance with other statutory requirements. Meeting these requirements has historically been sufficient for most employment-based cases.

Discretionary review adds another layer. Even if all eligibility boxes are checked, an adjudicator may consider the applicant's immigration history, whether the applicant maintained valid status throughout their time in the United States, any unauthorized employment, periods of overstay, the manner of entry, and other factors that bear on whether USCIS should exercise its discretion favorably.

The memo does not define a specific list of automatic disqualifiers. It does not say that any single factor will result in denial. It signals that USCIS may look beyond the statutory checklist and weigh the totality of the applicant's record. For applicants with straightforward immigration histories and consistent status maintenance, the practical effect may be limited. For applicants with gaps, complications, or ambiguous periods in their history, the risk of closer scrutiny increases.

H-1B holders represent a large share of Bellevue's international workforce. Many are employed at technology companies and are either in the early stages of green card sponsorship (prevailing wage determination, PERM labor certification) or have approved I-140 petitions and are waiting for visa number availability to file Form I-485.

For H-1B workers, the memo may be relevant in several scenarios. Workers who have changed employers multiple times should confirm that each transfer was properly filed and that no gaps in authorized employment exist. Workers who traveled internationally should review whether advance parole or valid H-1B visa stamps were in place for each reentry. Workers whose employers filed PERM or I-140 petitions should verify that the underlying documentation is complete and that the position, wage, and worksite are consistent with what was filed.

H-1B workers in the 60-day grace period following termination face particular sensitivity. A gap between the end of employment and the start of new H-1B-sponsored work, or a period of unauthorized work, could become a discretionary factor if the worker later files Form I-485. Prompt action during the grace period remains critical.

L-1 intracompany transferees may be affected if there are questions about the qualifying relationship between the foreign and U.S. entities, the nature of the managerial or specialized knowledge role, or the duration and continuity of employment abroad. L-1A holders considering EB-1C multinational manager green cards should ensure that the corporate documentation and role descriptions are thoroughly prepared.

O-1 holders generally have strong files given the evidentiary burden required for extraordinary ability classification. However, O-1 holders who have changed agents or employers should verify that each transition was properly documented. Gaps between O-1 petition approvals or periods outside O-1 status could draw scrutiny.

TN professionals face a specific complication: the TN classification does not formally recognize dual intent. Workers who have been in TN status while pursuing green card sponsorship may face questions about whether they maintained proper nonimmigrant intent. Strategic planning around the TN-to-green-card transition is more important under the memo's framework.

F-1 students transitioning to employment sponsorship through OPT or STEM OPT should confirm that employment authorization was continuous and that any cap-gap or status transition periods are well documented. An F-1 to H-1B to green card path involves multiple status changes, each of which could be examined under discretionary review.

The employment-based green card process typically involves PERM labor certification, an I-140 immigrant petition, and then either adjustment of status (Form I-485) or consular processing. The memo affects the third step, the adjustment of status filing, but the earlier steps remain unchanged.

An approved I-140 establishes the applicant's eligibility under an employment-based preference category (EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3) and locks in a priority date. The priority date determines when a visa number becomes available under the Department of State's monthly Visa Bulletin. When a visa number is current, the applicant can file Form I-485.

The memo does not change I-140 adjudication standards, PERM requirements, or visa number allocation. It changes the lens through which USCIS reviews the I-485 filing itself. For applicants from countries with long priority date backlogs (particularly India and China), the wait between I-140 approval and I-485 filing can span years. Immigration events that occurred during that waiting period, such as employer changes under AC21 portability, travel, or status transitions, may now receive closer examination.

Adjustment of status (Form I-485) allows an applicant to complete the green card process inside the United States. Consular processing requires the applicant to attend an interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. Both are valid pathways to permanent residence.

The memo describes consular processing as "the regular pathway," which may indicate a preference by the current administration for processing green card applications through consulates rather than domestic USCIS offices. This does not mean applicants must choose consular processing. It does mean that applicants and attorneys should evaluate both options more carefully than before.

Consular processing carries its own risks. Applicants must leave the United States, which may trigger bars to reentry if there are prior overstays or other inadmissibility issues. Consular officers exercise independent judgment, and interview scheduling timelines vary significantly by location. Applicants should not switch to consular processing without a thorough review of their travel history, admissibility, and the practical implications of departing the country.

For Bellevue workers with pending I-485 applications, the immediate question is whether to continue with adjustment of status or to request transfer to consular processing. In most cases, applicants should consult with an immigration attorney before making that decision.

Several common situations for Bellevue-area workers become more consequential under the memo's framework.

Travel while a Form I-485 is pending requires either a valid advance parole document or, for certain H-1B and L-1 holders, a valid visa stamp. Departing without proper documentation can result in abandonment of the I-485 application. The memo's emphasis on discretionary review may mean that even properly documented travel is examined more closely if there are other complicating factors.

Job changes during the green card process are possible under AC21 portability provisions when the I-485 has been pending for at least 180 days and the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification. The memo does not eliminate AC21 portability, but a job change combined with other discretionary factors could receive closer review.

Layoffs and employer transitions create timing pressure. A worker whose employment ends while an I-485 is pending must evaluate whether they can port to a new employer under AC21, whether their H-1B or other nonimmigrant status remains valid, and whether any gap in employment or authorized status could become a negative discretionary factor.

Status expiration is a baseline concern. Workers whose nonimmigrant status is expiring should not assume that a pending I-485 alone protects their ability to remain and work. Employment authorization through a pending I-485 (via an EAD based on the pending application) is available in some circumstances, but timing, documentation, and continuity matter.

Employers sponsoring foreign workers should review several areas in light of the memo.

First, employers should confirm that all PERM, I-140, and H-1B filings for current employees are accurate, complete, and consistent with the actual terms of employment. Job duties, worksite locations, wages, and minimum requirements should match what was filed. Inconsistencies between the filed record and the actual employment arrangement could become a factor in a discretionary review of the employee's I-485.

Second, employers should review the status and timing of pending sponsorship cases. If a prevailing wage determination is pending, PERM recruitment has not yet started, or an I-140 has not been filed, the employer should evaluate whether to accelerate the process given the increased emphasis on discretionary review at the I-485 stage.

Third, employers planning reductions in force, reorganizations, or position changes that affect sponsored workers should consult with immigration counsel before implementing those changes. A termination or material change in employment for a worker with a pending or future I-485 carries more weight under the memo's discretionary framework.

The memo does not require every applicant to change course. For workers with clean immigration histories, consistent status maintenance, and straightforward employment records, the practical impact may be limited.

However, a consultation is particularly important if any of the following apply: a Form I-485 is currently pending, there are gaps or ambiguities in immigration status history, the applicant has changed employers during the green card process, travel is planned while a case is pending, the applicant entered the United States on a different basis than their current status, there has been any period of unauthorized employment, an employer is planning changes that affect a sponsored worker's position, or the applicant is deciding between adjustment of status and consular processing.

Attorney Matty Luna at Crescent Law, PLLC provides employment-based immigration guidance for Bellevue-area workers and employers. All in-person meetings are by appointment only.