The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has signaled a major shift in U.S. immigration policy under new directives introduced by the Trump administration. According to the new guidance, most foreign nationals currently residing in the United States on temporary visas may no longer be able to easily complete their green card or permanent residency applications from within the country.
Instead, applicants may now be required to return to their home countries and complete the process through U.S. embassies or consulates abroad.
The sudden announcement has sparked widespread concern and confusion among millions of immigrants, immigration attorneys, and advocacy groups across the United States. The move is seen as a significant restriction on the long-standing “Adjustment of Status” process, which has allowed many immigrants to apply for permanent residency while remaining in the U.S.
Experts say the policy change reflects not just an administrative adjustment, but a broader shift in America’s immigration philosophy.
Under the new policy, USCIS stated that individuals entering the United States on tourist, student, or temporary work visas are expected to return home after their authorized stay. The administration says it wants to discourage the growing practice of using temporary visas as a “first step” toward obtaining a green card.
USCIS spokesperson Jack Kohler said, “We are returning to the original intent of the law. From now on, except in special circumstances, temporary visa holders will need to return to their home countries to apply for green cards.”
According to analysts, those likely to be most affected include foreign nationals married to U.S. citizens, international students, H-1B skilled workers, religious workers, and applicants seeking humanitarian protections. Each year, nearly 600,000 people apply for green cards while living inside the United States. Under the new rules, many of them may now face lengthy and complicated consular processing abroad.
The new guidance places particular emphasis on what USCIS calls “preconceived immigrant intent.” In other words, if someone enters the U.S. on a tourist or student visa while already planning to stay permanently, it could be viewed negatively by immigration authorities.
For example, individuals who enter on tourist visas and quickly marry before applying for a green card may face stricter scrutiny. Violations of visa conditions — such as unauthorized employment, overstaying a visa, or otherwise breaching visa terms — may also increase the likelihood of application denial.
USCIS has further clarified that obtaining a green card is not a guaranteed right but a discretionary benefit. Even applicants who meet legal eligibility requirements may not necessarily receive approval. Officers will make decisions on a case-by-case basis, and only “extraordinary circumstances” may qualify someone to adjust status from within the United States. However, the administration has not clearly defined what constitutes “extraordinary circumstances.”
Doug Rand, a former USCIS adviser under the Biden administration, criticized the policy, saying, “The goal of this administration is to ensure that as few people as possible obtain permanent residency, because green cards open the pathway to citizenship.”
Officials from the American Immigration Lawyers Association also warned that the move could effectively reverse decades of established immigration practice. They noted that obtaining visa appointments at U.S. consulates abroad can often take more than a year, potentially forcing applicants to remain separated from their families, jobs, and studies for extended periods.
Human rights organizations have also raised concerns about the humanitarian impact of the policy. They argue that the new rules could create severe difficulties for individuals from war-torn or unstable countries. Afghanistan was cited as a key example, since the U.S. embassy there is effectively closed, leaving uncertainty about where Afghan nationals would complete consular processing.
Immigration lawyers believe the policy may face legal challenges in court, as “Adjustment of Status” has long been a recognized and established process under U.S. immigration law. Any attempt to significantly limit it could trigger major legal and political debates in the future.
