The Department of Homeland Security moved on Friday to partially reverse course on a widely criticised announcement from the previous week, clarifying that not every immigrant seeking a green card would be required to return to their home country to complete the application process, and that decisions would instead rest with individual immigration officers on a case-by-case basis.
What DHS Said Originally: A Blanket Green Card Exit Requirement
The confusion stems from a US Citizenship and Immigration Services news release issued the previous week, which appeared to overturn a longstanding policy that permits immigrants to remain on American soil while awaiting permanent residency. That release stated, with limited qualification, that applicants would henceforth be required to leave the country except in “extraordinary” circumstances, a formulation that triggered immediate alarm among immigration lawyers, business groups and prospective green card holders alike.
The announcement seemed to affect the roughly 820,000 people who apply for green cards annually through a process known as “adjustment of status,” which allows immigrants living in the US to file without leaving the country. In 2024, approximately 1.4 million green cards were granted in total.
DHS Walkback: Officers Have ‘Always Had’ Case-by-Case Discretion
On Friday, the department issued a clarification that significantly narrowed the apparent scope of the earlier guidance.
“This was just a reminder to officers of their discretionary authority, which has always existed on a case-by-case basis,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement, declining to be named.
The spokesperson pointed to two broad categories of immigrants who could be most affected: those who have overstayed their visas, and nationals of countries whose citizens are considered heavy users of public assistance programmes.
A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters this week that the original guidance had been intended as an administrative housekeeping exercise rather than a strategic policy shift, though the news release announcing it gave no such indication. Reports also confirmed that even some officials within the Homeland Security Department were uncertain about the scope of the change when it was first made public.
Immigration Lawyers Report Green Card Interviews Already Changing
Despite the partial clarification, the situation on the ground had already shifted. Several immigration lawyers reported that their clients were being questioned by USCIS officers during interviews conducted earlier in the week about why they were applying for green cards within the United States, and whether any obstacles prevented them from doing so in their country of origin.
“The public backlash has clearly sent the administration scrambling to clean up its own mess,” said Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS official who now leads social policy at Third Way, a centre-left think tank.
Pierce added that the “signature” of the administration’s immigration agenda was to “prioritise shock and awe over what is best for the country.”
Legal Challenges Likely, But Confused Rollout Complicates Lawsuits
The original announcement was broadly anticipated to face legal challenges. However, the muddled and contradictory nature of the guidance has left lawyers uncertain about the most effective grounds on which to mount a case.
“It does make it more difficult to figure out what you’re suing for when you don’t know what this thing really is,” said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “It’s too early to tell right now what will be the most effective way to challenge this in court.”
US Chamber of Commerce Pushes Back on Green Card Policy
Business lobbies were among the most vocal critics of the policy as originally described. Neil Bradley, executive vice president and chief policy officer at the US Chamber of Commerce, acknowledged the administration’s aims on illegal immigration but cautioned that the change could damage American employers.
Bradley said policymakers should build a “more robust” legal immigration system and that the policy change could be “incredibly disruptive for employers.”
The concern is particularly acute for high-skilled foreign nationals on H-1B and other employment-based visas, many of whom have spent years in queue for a green card. Being required to leave the country would not only disrupt their employment but could compound already lengthy waiting times, given backlogs at many US consular posts abroad. Unlike domestic USCIS interviews, consular proceedings offer applicants no right to legal representation, and adverse decisions generally cannot be appealed.
“The employers are incredibly worried about this,” said Bernard Wolfsdorf, managing partner at Wolfsdorf Rosenthal, a firm that handles immigration matters for large technology companies. “These are the people who are at the very forefront of America’s technological advantage, and they’re being chased out of the country.”
Family-Sponsored Green Card Applicants Face Greatest Risk
Legal experts noted that the most severe practical impact of the original guidance, if enforced, would fall on immigrants who entered the US on temporary visas, subsequently married American citizens, and were permitted under longstanding policy to remain in the country throughout the green card application process, despite technically having overstayed their original visa.
Under the original policy as written, those forced to depart the US and apply from abroad could face multi-year bars on re-entry.
“It’s very clear they’re trying to go after that,” said Doug Rand, who served as a senior USCIS official during the Biden administration. “Because if now suddenly you can’t adjust status, and you have to go home to your home country, joke’s on you, now you’re barred from coming back for 10 years.”
Because family-sponsored applicants are less likely than employer-sponsored ones to hold an active underlying business visa, they are considered more vulnerable to the change.
Unanswered Questions: Paused Visa Processing and National Interest Exemptions
Significant ambiguities remain. The US guidance does not clearly address whether applicants from the dozens of countries for which immigrant visa processing has been suspended will be required to depart and apply abroad, nor does it define what would qualify someone for an exemption on the grounds of “national interest.”
