Trump’s Latest Assault On Migrants Pushes Green Card Applicants To Leave The Country

Confusion, uncertainty and panic. That is the consequence of the latest move by the Donald Trump administration to push migrants out of the country. On May 22, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a memorandum requiring applicants for lawful permanent residence — the so‑called green card — to complete the process from outside the United States, which would force hundreds of thousands of people to leave the country. The announcement landed like a bombshell among immigration lawyers and their clients, who, disoriented by the lack of information, do not know whether they face detention if they carry on with the process known as “adjustment of status,” which for decades has granted permanent residency to more than half a million people a year without requiring them to leave the country.

“We’re returning to the original intent of the law to ensure aliens navigate our nation’s immigration system properly. From now on, an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances,” USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler announced on May 22.

In fiscal year 2024 (October 2023 through September 30, 2024), more than 1.3 million green cards were granted, about 780,000 of them through adjustment of status, that is, from inside the U.S. The other route to permanent residence is through a U.S. consulate abroad, which is what the government is now promoting.

“It was a surprise to all of us. The impact has been titanic compared with anything else we have seen from this administration. Without a doubt, the response I have witnessed — from both clients and our own members — is unprecedented in my 30 years of experience,” Jeff Joseph, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said this week. The organization put together a virtual meeting last Thursday to respond to numerous requests from the media, lawyers and affected people, who were confused by the vague information USCIS provided.

Practitioners themselves acknowledged there is no clarity about who will be required to leave the country to apply for the green card, but most experts agree the hardest hit will be people obtaining residency through a family member: those who are married to a U.S. citizen, who have parents who are citizens, or who have an adult child who is a citizen. They make up the majority of adjustment of status applicants. Beneficiaries of humanitarian programs, such as Temporary Protected Status or DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), who have already faced harassment from the U.S. government, are also among those who will be affected by the new policy. In addition, it would include people with approved employment petitions, diversity visa winners and special immigrants — such as religious workers. Excluded are those who obtained residency as asylees and refugees, although Trump has already all but dismantled those programs.

The memorandum that set off alarm bells states that adjustment of status applications filed inside the United States should be considered an “extraordinary discretionary remedy” and an “administrative act of grace.” The guidance suggests these applications can be denied if the applicant fails to show, by other means, that they deserve a favorable exercise of discretion.

A day before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees USCIS, announced the change, immigration officers were already surprising applicants at their interviews with questions previously reserved for people who had prior run‑ins with authorities, such as having been deported. Four questions were used to intimidate applicants: Why did you apply for adjustment of status rather than consular processing? Is there any factor preventing you from pursuing consular processing? Do you still have family ties in your country of origin? And why did you decide not to return to your country once your authorized period of stay expired?

“Underlying this is the presumption that things have been done incorrectly if a person remains in the country beyond the permitted time and subsequently applies for adjustment of status,” Joseph says. “A standard normally reserved for the most violent criminals has been converted into an eligibility requirement for adjustment of status, so now it is necessary to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances just to access the resident‑card application process,” he adds. Those who have already attended interviews say even USCIS officers do not know how to follow the instructions.

The discretionary nature of the new policy is what keeps migrants and lawyers on edge. The administration argues that adjustment of status was established as an exceptional measure, but experts and more than seven decades of practice refute that claim. In 1952, U.S. Congress enacted adjustment of status to avoid the burden, delay and risk of leaving the country to obtain a resident card through consular processing. Since then, Congress has repeatedly expanded by statute the group of people eligible for adjustment of status.

If someone who entered on a tourist or student visa, for example, fell in love with and married a U.S. citizen, they could remain in the country while applying for permanent residency or a green card. The requirement to leave the country to do so, as the memorandum suggests, would lead to family separation for years or indefinitely in some cases. The administration has barred entry or visa processing for citizens of more than 90 countries, so reentry is not viable for them.

“If people from those countries — such as Cuba, Venezuela, Afghanistan and Iran — are told they must go to their country’s consulate to obtain a visa, they cannot do so; there is no way to carry out consular processing. Therefore, their only chance would be to obtain the resident card while inside the United States and now, apparently, that door is being closed as well,” explains Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. program at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI).

‘More questions than answers’

Since the memorandum became public, Wendy Rodríguez, an immigration attorney in Texas, has been inundated with questions from her clients. Like others in her profession, she is trying to decipher the meaning of the new rules. “There are more questions than answers,” she admits.

Rodríguez has sent a letter to all her clients explaining the new risks if they apply for adjustment of status. She tells them that if they attend the USCIS interview, they should prepare documentation showing they are upstanding members of the community: whether they participate in civic activities, attend church, work, and how indispensable they are to their family…

Her clients convey the fear of having to leave the country. “There are many fears: the fear of not being able to return; the fear that upon departure immigration violations will be discovered that require a waiver that would not be necessary while inside the United States; the fear of changing laws, and the general insecurity in their home countries. The number one factor is that there is no fixed timeline for when the process will conclude, and that means you could be away from your family for several years,” she said by phone. Consular processes are slower, can take many more years, and, moreover, cannot be appealed.

Rodríguez believes the memorandum will not be implemented. “The administration is issuing instructions that contravene the law, what Congress has already voted and agreed on, so I do not think we will see it implemented. If a lawsuit hasn’t already been filed, one is imminent,” she says. The American Immigration Lawyers Association is compiling cases of affected people to challenge the memorandum. They say it takes time to gather cases and arguments for that, but they affirm they have already begun preparations to take the case to court.

One major unknown is whether the memorandum will affect people who entered the United States on an H‑1B temporary work visa for specialized professionals, who are among the 1.2 million migrants with pending resident card applications. The Cato Institute says this group would also be forced to self‑deport to continue the process.

In response to questions sent by EL PAÍS, DHS replied by email that “this policy will not have a perceptible impact on highly skilled applicants or qualified professionals who have complied with the law. These foreign nationals benefit the national interest, bring economic benefits to the United States and will continue to merit a favorable exercise of discretion.” The department confirmed the administration’s desire to expel lower‑income migrants from the country: “The president continues to prioritize an immigration system that strengthens the United States culturally, socially and financially, while preventing mass migration from the Third World, which harms our country and Americans.”

The new rules are aimed at increasing the number of people who can be deported, since despite massive detention operations the president’s goal of removing one million people a year has not been met. The numerous obstacles the administration has imposed on foreign nationals raise the question of whether it is worth remaining in the country.

“Some people with a high level of education, who hold professional jobs and contribute actively to U.S. society and the economy, may come to think: ‘This is another obstacle that jeopardizes my ability to remain here legally.’ They may question whether it is worth fighting to stay,” Gelatt says. “Perhaps that is precisely one of the underlying objectives: to alter how people weigh benefits against risks, to the point that they conclude it would be easier to pursue their careers somewhere other than the United States.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition