Trump Green Card Policy Lawsuit, USCIS Rules Challenged Over Adjustment of Status and RFE Denials

A coalition of labor unions, university faculty groups, an immigrant-rights organization and six green card applicants has sued the Trump administration over two USCIS policies that, they say, make it far harder for eligible immigrants already in the United States to obtain permanent residence. As of October 8, 2026, no court has blocked either policy.

The lawsuit was filed on October 5, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It argues that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) exceeded the authority Congress gave it by turning adjustment of status, the process that lets eligible immigrants already in the United States apply for a green card without leaving the country, into a disfavored and far more discretionary process.

It also challenges an August 2026 USCIS policy that gives officers broader authority to deny certain applications without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID).

The case is American Association of University Professors et al. v. Mullin et al., No. 1:26-cv-14527.

Filing the lawsuit did not stop either policy. Pending and new adjustment-of-status applications remain subject to both policies while the case continues. The government had not yet filed a response in the sources reviewed.

Trump Green Card Policy Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	American Association of University Professors et al. v. Mullin et al.
Case number	1:26-cv-14527
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Filed	October 5, 2026
Judge	Donald L. Cabell
Plaintiffs	American Association of University Professors (AAUP), including its Harvard Faculty Chapter and Boston University Chapter; Service Employees International Union (SEIU), SEIU Local 509 and 32BJ SEIU; Americans for Immigrant Justice; and six individual green card applicants
Defendants	Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Joseph B. Edlow, USCIS Director (officials named in their official capacities)
First challenged policy	USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, issued May 21, 2026
Second challenged policy	USCIS Policy Alert PA-2026-05, issued August 5, 2026
Process affected	Adjustment of status (Form I-485)
Main legal grounds	INA § 245 (8 U.S.C. § 1255); Administrative Procedure Act; Accardi doctrine; Fifth Amendment due process
Case type	Federal administrative-law challenge. Not a class action
Current status	Pending; no court order blocking either policy as of October 8, 2026
Settlement, claim form or compensation	None

Is the AAUP v. Mullin Green Card Lawsuit a Class Action With a Claim Form?

No. It is a challenge to federal agency policies brought by organizations and named individuals. No class has been certified, and there is no settlement, claim form or compensation program. The plaintiffs want a court to declare the policies unlawful, block them and set them aside.

What Is the AAUP v. Mullin Lawsuit Against USCIS About?

The complaint challenges two separate USCIS policies that the plaintiffs say work together:

1. One governs how USCIS exercises discretion over adjustment of status.
2. The other governs when USCIS may deny an application without first giving the applicant a chance to submit more evidence.

The plaintiffs argue the combination is especially harmful to people who filed before the policies existed. They allege USCIS is changing the standards after applicants filed and, in some cases, without a meaningful opportunity to respond. They also say the policies effectively push many eligible applicants who have lived, worked, studied and raised families in the United States toward consular processing abroad, where backlogs can last months or years, or toward outright denial.

What Does USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 (May 21, 2026) Say About Adjustment of Status?

On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued 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 framed the memorandum as a reaffirmation that adjustment under INA § 245 is discretionary and that consular visa processing is the ordinary route. The plaintiffs allege it goes further. They say it directs officers to treat an applicant’s choice to adjust status inside the United States, rather than leave and pursue an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate, as a negative discretionary factor, and that applicants must show “unusual or even outstanding” equities to overcome it.

The plaintiffs do not dispute that adjustment has long involved discretion. Their argument is that USCIS has changed which facts count against applicants and how much they must overcome, in a way they say conflicts with the statute Congress wrote.

What Does USCIS Policy Alert PA-2026-05 (August 5, 2026) Say About RFEs and NOIDs?

PA-2026-05, titled “Evidence, Requests for Evidence, and Notices of Intent to Deny,” changed USCIS guidance on missing or insufficient evidence. The complaint alleges it lets officers deny applications, including green card applications, when required initial evidence is missing or insufficient without first issuing an RFE or NOID. It applies to applications already pending when the policy was issued, which is a central part of the lawsuit.

An RFE is a USCIS request for more documentation needed to decide a benefit request. A NOID tells the applicant USCIS intends to deny and gives a chance to respond. Under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8), USCIS has discretion in some situations over whether to issue them, and the regulation sets response procedures and deadlines when it does. The August policy broadens how that discretion is used, so an applicant cannot assume an incomplete record will bring a chance to fix it.

Related article: Florida TP-Link Lawsuit, Attorney General Accuses Router Maker of Misleading Consumers About Security and China Ties

What Is Adjustment of Status Under INA § 245 (8 U.S.C. § 1255)?

Adjustment of status lets an eligible person already physically present in the United States become a lawful permanent resident without completing the immigrant-visa process at a consulate abroad. The governing statute is 8 U.S.C. § 1255, which codifies INA § 245.

Under § 1255(a), a person who was inspected and admitted or paroled may adjust if they:

1. apply for adjustment;
2. are eligible to receive an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence; and
3. have an immigrant visa immediately available when the application is filed.

Section 1255(c) bars certain people from adjusting under the ordinary rule, such as some who failed to maintain lawful status or worked without authorization, subject to statutory exceptions. The implementing regulations are 8 C.F.R. § 245.1 (eligibility) and 8 C.F.R. § 245.2 (filing, jurisdiction and effect of departure). The plaintiffs’ point is that Congress already wrote detailed bars into the statute, and that Congress created this pathway so eligible people already present would not have to leave.

Why Do the Plaintiffs Say the May USCIS Adjustment Policy Exceeds Its Authority?

The complaint’s central argument is that Congress established adjustment as an ordinary statutory pathway. According to the complaint, Congress has amended § 1255 at least 25 times but has never enacted a general rule that otherwise eligible applicants must leave and use consular processing or risk denial for choosing adjustment. The plaintiffs argue USCIS cannot do through a policy memorandum what Congress did not do by statute. Count I alleges the May policy exceeds USCIS’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The government’s position, reflected in the memorandum, is that adjustment is an extraordinary, discretionary mechanism and that officers may weigh an applicant’s immigration history and the decision to bypass consular processing. The legal question is not whether discretion exists, but whether USCIS may use it in the way the policy describes.

Does the USCIS Policy Mean Every Green Card Applicant Must Leave the United States?

Not exactly. The policy does not simply say every applicant must leave. The plaintiffs allege USCIS directs officers to treat the choice to adjust as a negative factor and to require stronger countervailing equities in many cases. The policy also identifies limited exceptions, including certain dual-intent nonimmigrant categories and immigrant categories for which adjustment is a particular pathway. Eligible applicants can still file Form I-485. The plaintiffs argue the policy effectively penalizes many applicants for using the adjustment process Congress created.

What Are Dual-Intent Visas and Why Do H-1B and L-1 Workers Matter in the Lawsuit?

A dual-intent category lets a nonimmigrant keep temporary status while also pursuing permanent residence. The complaint points to H-1B and L-1 workers and cites 8 U.S.C. § 1184(b), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(16) (H classifications) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(16) (L classifications).

The plaintiffs argue the policy is in tension with this structure because maintaining lawful dual-intent status is not treated as enough by itself to secure favorable discretion. The lawsuit does not automatically protect every H-1B or L-1 worker. The court must decide the claims first, and each person’s eligibility still depends on the statute, regulations, visa availability and their own facts.

What Do the Six Individual Plaintiffs Allege in the Green Card Lawsuit?

The following are allegations and descriptions from the plaintiffs’ complaint, not findings by the court.

Areli Rojas Correa

Born in Mexico, she entered the United States as a young child, has lived here since 1999, received DACA in 2013 and has no criminal arrests or convictions. She is married to a naturalized U.S. citizen and applied for a marriage-based green card. At her adjustment interview, the officer questioned why she was seeking permanent residence in the United States rather than through consular processing. Her husband’s immigrant petition was later approved, but her adjustment application remained pending.

Miriam Esther Moreno Coto

A Salvadoran national who has lived in the United States for about 26 years and has three U.S.-citizen children. Her son petitioned for her green card. At her July 2026 interview, the officer allegedly questioned her repeatedly about why she was pursuing adjustment instead of consular processing.

Maria Francisca Guardado

She filed her adjustment application in October 2022. USCIS later found her statutorily eligible but denied it as a matter of discretion, citing her immigration history, a 1999 arrest for which the charge was dismissed and alleged nondisclosures on earlier TPS applications. Her motion to reopen or reconsider was pending when the complaint was filed.

Ikechi Obinna Nwaozuzu

A Nigerian national in Texas who filed an employment-based adjustment application in April 2026 while in F-1 status, working for Comcast through curricular practical training. He alleges that if he must pursue an immigrant visa abroad, restrictions on immigrant-visa issuance to Nigerian nationals could complicate his return.

Derly Sneit Sierra Palacios

A Colombian national in Utah with two U.S.-citizen children with her husband. She filed an employment-based adjustment application in February 2026. A denial could force her to pursue residence abroad, separating her from her family or requiring the family to relocate.

Julieth Melissa Camargo Figueroa

A Colombian citizen in North Carolina with her husband and eight-year-old son. She filed an employment-based adjustment application in April 2026. Her pending application is the basis for her work authorization, and a denial could affect her ability to return to teaching.

What Are the Six Legal Claims in the AAUP v. Mullin Complaint?

Count I: INA § 245 (8 U.S.C. § 1255)

The May policy conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act and exceeds USCIS’s statutory authority by creating a categorical negative factor for using the domestic adjustment process.

Count II: Retroactive application

The May and August policies operate retroactively by applying new standards to applications filed before they existed. Applicants could not have known when they filed that adjustment would be treated as an adverse factor, or that USCIS could deny without first giving them a chance to supply evidence.

Count III: Administrative Procedure Act, arbitrary and capricious action

Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the plaintiffs argue the policies are arbitrary and capricious because they allegedly depart from prior agency practice and governing legal standards without adequately addressing important consequences.

Count IV: Administrative Procedure Act, notice-and-comment rulemaking

Under 5 U.S.C. § 553, the plaintiffs characterize the memoranda as substantive rules that should have gone through notice-and-comment rulemaking and allege USCIS made them effective without public comment.

Count V: The Accardi doctrine and binding immigration precedent

The Accardi doctrine, from United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), generally requires agencies to follow their own rules and binding precedent. The complaint cites 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(1), which makes designated Board of Immigration Appeals precedent decisions binding on DHS officers and immigration judges, and invokes Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494; Matter of Blas, 15 I&N Dec. 641; Matter of Cavazos, 17 I&N Dec. 215; Matter of Ibrahim, 18 I&N Dec. 55; Matter of Khan, 17 I&N Dec. 511; Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296; Matter of Edwards, 20 I&N Dec. 70; and Matter of Marin, 16 I&N Dec. 581.

The plaintiffs argue these decisions support a framework in which serious adverse factors can require stronger countervailing equities, not one that treats the mere choice to adjust rather than use consular processing as an adverse factor in every case.

Count VI: Fifth Amendment due process

The plaintiffs argue eligible applicants have a protected interest in a proper adjudication and that the policies deny adequate notice and an opportunity to respond before denial. The complaint relies on cases including Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). No court has ruled this theory correct.

What Other Immigration Laws Does the Green Card Lawsuit Involve?

• 8 U.S.C. § 1103 gives the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to administer and enforce the immigration laws and issue regulations, subject to the limits Congress set. The government relies on broad authority, while the plaintiffs say the policies exceed the specific limits on adjustment.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1361 places the burden on applicants to establish eligibility. The lawsuit asks whether USCIS can add substantive standards or deny without the procedures the plaintiffs say the law requires.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1182 lists the grounds of inadmissibility, including criminal, security, health and public-charge grounds. These matter more for applicants who must leave for consular processing.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B) and 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e) cover the three-year and ten-year unlawful-presence bars and provisional waivers. Generally, departure after more than 180 days but less than one year of unlawful presence can trigger a three-year bar, and departure after one year or more can trigger a ten-year bar, subject to exceptions.
• 8 C.F.R. § 245.2 addresses abandonment of a pending adjustment application on departure unless advance parole or another exception applies.

Why Does Leaving the United States Matter So Much for Green Card Applicants?

The difference between adjustment and consular processing is not just where the interview happens. The complaint says an applicant required to leave could lose a job, interrupt a career or education, be separated from a spouse or children, face immigrant-visa delays or restrictions, trigger an unlawful-presence bar and need a waiver, or be unable to return on the expected timetable. This is why the plaintiffs say adjustment is not a mere convenience, and why telling an applicant to “leave and apply from abroad” can carry serious legal consequences.

What Happens to I-485 Applications Filed Before May 21, 2026?

The complaint specifically challenges applying the policies to already-pending applications. The plaintiffs say many applicants filed before May 21, 2026, when PM-602-0199 was issued, under a system that did not treat adjustment as a negative factor requiring unusual or outstanding equities. They argue USCIS cannot impose that standard retroactively without legal authority and adequate procedural protections.

Has a Court Blocked the Trump Administration’s Green Card Policies?

No, not as of October 8, 2026. The plaintiffs have asked for temporary and preliminary relief, including an injunction or stay. But filing a complaint does not automatically suspend an agency policy, and no court order currently blocks PM-602-0199 or PA-2026-05. Applicants should not assume the lawsuit has restored the old USCIS rules.

What Are the Plaintiffs Asking the Federal Court to Do?

The plaintiffs want the court to:

1. declare the policies unlawful and beyond USCIS’s statutory authority;
2. declare that they violate the Administrative Procedure Act, including its notice-and-comment requirements;
3. declare that they violate the Accardi doctrine and the Fifth Amendment;
4. temporarily restrain or preliminarily enjoin the policies;
5. permanently enjoin them;
6. require USCIS to adjudicate affected applications consistently with controlling BIA precedent;
7. vacate and set aside the policies; and
8. award attorneys’ fees and costs where permitted.

These are requests for relief. The court has granted none of them.

What Happens Next in the AAUP v. Mullin Lawsuit?

The first issue is likely the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief. For a preliminary injunction, courts generally weigh the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of harms and the public interest. The government will get a chance to defend the policies and argue that USCIS acted within its authority. The case could then move through briefing, hearings, motions and possibly appeal, and the timing of any ruling is uncertain.

What Should Applicants With a Pending Form I-485 Know Right Now?

The lawsuit does not change the rules governing your application. USCIS can keep adjudicating pending I-485s under the policies now in effect, and the complaint alleges they are already affecting interviews and decisions, including in cases filed earlier.

Do not assume the lawsuit has stopped the new policy, and be careful about deciding on your own to leave the United States. The consequences of departure depend on your immigration history, current status, advance-parole situation, unlawful-presence history, visa category and other facts. People facing a possible denial, a departure requirement or a change in processing route should consider advice from a qualified immigration attorney.

Could the Lawsuit Affect Family-Based, Employment-Based, H-1B and L-1 Applicants?

Potentially, but nobody is automatically protected. The plaintiffs include family-based applicants (people married to U.S. citizens and people whose U.S.-citizen relatives petitioned for them) and employment-based applicants, and the complaint describes professors, healthcare workers and other workers whose jobs depend on staying in the United States. If the plaintiffs win the relief they seek, it could change how USCIS evaluates adjustment cases. Until then, each application is judged under the policies currently in effect.

Is This the Same Case as the Public Charge Rule Lawsuits or the State Department Green Card Lawsuits?

No. This case challenges USCIS adjustment-of-status discretion, the treatment of domestic adjustment versus consular processing, the August evidence and RFE/NOID policy, retroactive application, notice-and-comment compliance, adherence to immigration precedent and due process.

It is separate from the public charge rule, which concerns whether certain public benefits may be considered under INA § 212(a)(4). See AllAboutLawyer’s coverage: Trump’s Public Charge Rule Takes Effect September 18.

It is also separate from litigation over State Department immigrant-visa restrictions, which concerns visa processing through U.S. consulates abroad, while this case concerns USCIS adjustment for people already inside the United States. See: State Dept. Green Card Lawsuits, Every Active Case, 2026.

What Could the AAUP v. Mullin Lawsuit Ultimately Decide?

The core question is how much discretion USCIS has to change how the adjustment-of-status system works through policy guidance when Congress already created the pathway in INA § 245. The plaintiffs say USCIS crossed that line. The government is expected to defend its authority over adjustment discretion and evidentiary procedures.

A ruling would not decide whether any individual receives a green card. It would decide how USCIS may evaluate adjustment applications and whether the two policies can continue in their current form. A court could leave them in place, block some or all of them, send them back to USCIS, or rule differently on different claims. For now, nothing in the October 5 filing has restored the previous adjustment rules.

Frequently Asked Questions About the AAUP v. Mullin Green Card Lawsuit

What is the Trump green card policy lawsuit?

It is American Association of University Professors et al. v. Mullin et al., No. 1:26-cv-14527, filed October 5, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It challenges two USCIS policies affecting adjustment-of-status green card applications.

Who filed the AAUP v. Mullin lawsuit?

The AAUP and its Harvard Faculty and Boston University chapters, SEIU with SEIU Local 509 and 32BJ SEIU, Americans for Immigrant Justice and six individual green card applicants.

Who are the defendants in AAUP v. Mullin?

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS and USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow.

What USCIS policies are being challenged?

Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 (May 21, 2026), on discretion in adjustment of status, and Policy Alert PA-2026-05 (August 5, 2026), on evidence, RFEs and NOIDs.

Has the court blocked either USCIS policy?

No. As of October 8, 2026, the lawsuit is pending and no order blocks either policy.

Do the USCIS policies force every green card applicant to leave the country?

No. They change how officers evaluate adjustment applications, and the plaintiffs say they effectively penalize in-country adjustment. Eligible applicants can still file Form I-485.

Can I still file Form I-485 while the lawsuit is pending?

Yes. The policies do not suspend filing. They change how new and pending applications are evaluated. Get individual advice from a qualified immigration attorney.

Can USCIS deny a green card application without an RFE?

Under the August policy, USCIS has broader discretion to deny certain applications when required initial evidence is missing or insufficient without first issuing an RFE or NOID. It must still follow applicable law, and 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8) continues to govern. The court has not decided whether the policy is lawful.

Which law allows adjustment of status?

INA § 245, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1255, with 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.1 and 245.2.

What is the Accardi doctrine?

It generally requires government agencies to follow their own rules and binding procedures. The plaintiffs invoke it, along with binding BIA precedent, to argue USCIS’s new policies conflict with existing law.

Can USCIS still deny an adjustment application as a matter of discretion?

Yes. The lawsuit does not dispute that adjustment involves discretion. It disputes how that discretion may be exercised.

Is there a settlement or claim form?

No. This is not a class settlement, and no compensation is available through the case.

Sources and Legal Authorities

• Complaint, American Association of University Professors et al. v. Mullin et al., No. 1:26-cv-14527 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 5, 2026)
• USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, May 21, 2026
• USCIS Policy Alert PA-2026-05, August 5, 2026 (Immigration Policy Tracking Project)
• 8 U.S.C. § 1255
• 8 U.S.C. § 1103
• 8 U.S.C. § 1182
• 8 U.S.C. § 1361
• 8 C.F.R. § 245.1
• 8 C.F.R. § 245.2
• 8 C.F.R. § 103.2
• 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1
• Factum Immigration: Lawsuit Challenges USCIS Green Card Policies

Disclaimer: For informational purposes only; not legal advice. Claims described here are the plaintiffs’ allegations and have not been established by a court. Immigration outcomes depend on individual facts, so consult a licensed immigration attorney.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts checked against the complaint in AAUP et al. v. Mullin et al., USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, USCIS Policy Alert PA-2026-05 and the cited statutes and regulations (Cornell LII), as of October 8, 2026. Last Updated: October 8, 2026.