Following the USCIS policy memo PM-602-0199 issued on May 21, 2026, what is changing regarding U.S. Green Card (I-485) interviews, and how should you prepare?
What Does the New Memo Say?
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued a policy memo numbered PM-602-0199. The core message is this: Applying for a Green Card from within the U.S. (Adjustment of Status / I-485) is not a “right,” but a discretionary and exceptional privilege.
The law has not changed—INA § 245 is still in effect, applications are still being accepted, and there is no new legal barrier. What has changed is the evaluative attitude of the officers: being “eligible” is no longer enough on its own; the applicant is now expected to further demonstrate that they deserve to have that discretion exercised in their favor.
This shift has its primary impact in the interview room, which is the subject of this article.
The Function of the Interview Has Changed
Previously, an I-485 interview was largely a verification step: confirming identity, the legitimacy of the marriage, the consistency of documents, and admissibility questions.
After this memo, a new layer has been added: while sitting at the table, the officer is now also weighing the question, “Is it appropriate to grant a Green Card to this person from within the U.S., or should they return to their home country and apply through a consulate?” In other words, the interview has transformed into a stage where you are asked not only “Are you eligible?” but also “Do you deserve to have discretion exercised in your favor?”
This leads to three practical results: more in-depth questioning, eligibility no longer being sufficient on its own, and unpredictability in outcomes.
Deeper and Different Questions in the Interview
Attorneys report that they are already observing additional questioning in AOS interviews following the memo. In addition to classic questions, expect the officer to probe for factors of discretion:
Your manner of entry: How and with what status did you enter the country? Was it a visa or parole?
Your status chronology: Have you maintained your status without interruption? Is there any “overstay”?
Unauthorized employment: Have you had any period where you worked without authorization?
“Why didn’t you leave?”: The memo explicitly counts entering with a visa/parole and failing to leave the country as a negative factor. Particularly if this situation is linked to an intent for permanent residency, the question, “Why did you stay here when you could have applied through the normal route (a consulate)?” may arise.
Fraud / Misrepresentation: Whether there has been any lying or misrepresentation in past applications.
The standard “Yes/No” admissibility questions remain; any “Yes” answer requires careful documentation.
Being Eligible May Not Be Enough
This is the most critical reality of the post-memo era: inside the interview room, the officer may say, “Yes, technically you meet all the requirements, but I do not want to exercise my discretion in your favor.”
There is a technical nuance here. Normally, for example, in an application through marriage to a U.S. citizen, some status violations like overstaying do not prevent a person from getting a Green Card on their own. But when the discretion mechanism kicks in, the officer can use these violations as grounds “not to decide in my favor.”
Therefore, you need to go to the interview with positive elements that prove not just your eligibility, but why discretion should be exercised in your favor.
Factors That May Be Considered Positive
Paying taxes, working in a useful job, and creating employment.
Strong family ties—especially situations that make it practically impossible for the person to leave the country, such as a spouse being on active duty in the U.S. military.
Long-term stable residence, contributions to the community, volunteering.
Humanitarian/hardship situations (for example, like a hardship waiver in a J-1 visa, documenting that the spouse should not have to leave the country).
A clean record is necessary, but it is an element that is not sufficient on its own.
Factors That May Be Considered Negative
Status violation, overstaying, unauthorized employment.
An arrest or criminal record.
Fraud, misrepresentation, lying.
“Failure to leave the country when expected.”
Important standard: The memo recalls a challenging criterion from the Matter of Blas decision—negative factors can only be balanced by “unusual or even outstanding positive elements.” That is to say, saying “I didn’t do anything bad” is not enough; you must present concrete, strong positive elements.
Whose Interview Will Be More Difficult?
More protected: Dual-intent statuses—H-1B, L-1—are advantageous because their records demonstrate “compliance.” Categories like K-1 and EB-5 are also stronger at the outset. (Warning: The memo states that merely maintaining a dual-intent status does not guarantee discretion on its own.)
More risky: Single-intent statuses—F-1 (student), B-1/B-2 (tourist), especially those applying shortly after entry; those who entered with parole; those who entered from the border and applied for asylum; and those with a status violation/arrest record.
Note: The idea of “I waited 90 days after entry, I am safe” is misleading; this does not create a safe harbor.
The Officers Are Also Confused
One fact you should know when preparing for an interview: the officers themselves are not clear on how the memo will be applied. Conflicting statements have even emerged from within the agency itself; public discourse hardened and softened within a few days, but the instruction given to officers to “strictly apply discretion” remains in place.
The practical result of this is unpredictability. Two people in the same category can receive different results based on their entry history, status compliance, and the strength of their positive elements. This uncertainty makes preparation and representation in the room even more important.
The Role of the Attorney in the Interview Room
After the memo, the value of going into an interview with an experienced attorney has increased significantly. The attorney’s role is almost like a game of chess.
Gently nudging the officer:
Although the interview takes place between the officer and the applicant, an attorney can intervene when a line of questioning begins that is irrelevant or not related to factors of discretion—such as, “Officer, these questions are not related to a positive/negative balance; we request that you do not continue this line of questioning.” The presence of an experienced representative can keep the officer’s approach measured.
Highlighting positive elements:
An attorney can ensure that the strong positive factors in the file are clearly recorded in the interview.
Requesting a “sworn statement” when an interview goes poorly:
If you feel that the interview is turning negative and the likelihood of denial is increasing, the attorney can ask the officer to take a detailed, word-for-word sworn statement. The reason for this is as follows: if a motion or federal lawsuit is filed in the future, the judge usually does not hear witnesses from scratch; they make a decision based on what is in the record. Therefore, keeping the record accurate and complete at the moment of the interview is of critical importance.
A real example illustrates this logic well: In a citizenship interview, as the officer was leaning toward making a “false testimony” finding, the attorney, with a calm and clear attitude, was able to persuade the officer to take a step back by saying, “Officer, this is your decision, but in our opinion, there is no false testimony here because for these reasons…” The same proactive approach works in discretion-based I-485 interviews.
Preparing for the Interview: Checklist
Always prepare as if you will have an interview. (An interview is the default step; an exemption is an exceptional act of discretion, do not rely on it.)
Structure your file not just as an eligibility file, but as a discretion file.
Document positive factors: tax returns, pay stubs, employment letters, proof of family ties (spouse’s military service certificate, etc.), and proof of community contributions.
Consider adding a short discretion analysis memo to the file that lists the positive factors and directly addresses the negative ones.
Do not hide negative factors if you have them, manage them: explain how an arrest or status violation occurred and how it concluded—with documentation.
Be prepared to clearly explain your entry and status chronology.
If possible, maintain your status (H-1B/L-1) and avoid unnecessary travel on advance parole.
If possible, go to the interview with an experienced immigration attorney.
If the interview goes poorly, request a sworn statement and ensure the record is kept correctly.
After the Interview: What Happens If a Denial Comes?
The memo brings an important procedural guarantee to discretion-based denials: a denial based on the unfavorable use of discretion must contain a written rationale. This rationale must explain the positive and negative factors evaluated and why the negative factors outweighed the positive ones.
This written analysis is very valuable if you file a motion in the future or enter the removal process. Therefore, read the denial decision carefully and keep it.
Possible steps:
Motion to Reopen / Reconsider: Reopening/reevaluating the file in certain situations.
Federal Lawsuit (APA-based): A lawsuit that claims the administrative action is flawed and requests cancellation under the Administrative Procedure Act. Here, too, the solid record created at the interview is decisive.
Mandamus: If the interview call is delayed too long: if the file has been pending well beyond the announced timelines, a writ of mandamus forcing the government to act may be on the agenda.
Conclusion
PM-602-0199 does not repeal a single law, but it effectively changes the rules of the interview table: being “eligible” is no longer enough; you must show in the interview that you deserve to have discretion exercised in your favor. Your expectations should be more questions, the burden of proving positive elements, and unpredictability in outcomes.
The good news: this is a matter of preparation, not panic. A well-documented file, the good presentation of positive factors, and an experienced representative at the interview can significantly turn the result in your favor. If you have elements in your situation such as a status violation, arrest record, or parole/border entry, the healthiest way forward is to get a case evaluation from an immigration attorney before going to the interview.
How Can MC Law Firm Help You?
As we have seen in this article, being “eligible” is no longer enough in an interview after the memo; you must show that you deserve to have discretion exercised in your favor. That is exactly where the right preparation makes a difference.
As MC Law Firm, we structure your file as a discretion file before the interview call even arrives: we document and highlight your positive factors (employment, tax compliance, family ties, contribution to the community), and instead of ignoring negative elements, we counter them with balancing evidence.
On the day of the interview, we are by your side, prepare you in advance for the officer’s discretion questions, and when necessary—as we explained in this article—we intervene in the process and ensure the record is kept correctly (sworn statement). Against a possible discretion-based denial, we structure the file by considering motion and federal lawsuit (APA) options from the very beginning.
Additionally, for your applications that are not concluded in a reasonable time and are waiting beyond the announced processing times, we manage mandamus lawsuit processes in federal court. Contact us to evaluate your situation for your O-1, Green Card, and other immigration applications.
Contact
201-957-0909
info@mclawfirm.com
Follow Us
Instagram: @allthingsimmigration
