A successful adjustment of status application requires two things: meeting the technical eligibility requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and convincing USCIS to exercise its discretion in your favor. Most applicants focus almost entirely on the first requirement and give the second far less thought. That is a mistake.

In May 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum 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.” The memo formalized and sharpened USCIS guidance on how officers should weigh discretionary factors in Form I-485 adjudications. Understanding the framework the memo describes matters for every applicant currently in the process and for anyone planning to file.

The Legal Basis for Discretion

Adjustment of status is authorized by INA § 245(a), which provides that the status of an eligible alien “may be adjusted” to that of a lawful permanent resident. The word “may” is intentional. Congress has never treated adjustment as automatic. An officer who finds that an applicant is technically eligible still has authority to deny the application if the balance of equities does not favor the grant.

The courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals have consistently confirmed this. In Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970), the BIA held that adjustment is a matter of administrative grace and that USCIS retains discretion to deny it absent a showing of positive factors that outweigh any adverse considerations.

The Two-Step Framework

USCIS evaluates adjustment applications in two steps.

The first step is threshold eligibility: Is the applicant an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States? Is a visa immediately available? Is the applicant not barred from adjustment under INA § 245(c) or inadmissible on a ground that has not been waived?

The second step is the discretionary determination: Even if the applicant clears the threshold, does the balance of equities favor granting permanent residence?

An applicant who fails the threshold is denied on eligibility grounds. An applicant who clears the threshold can still be denied on discretionary grounds. PM-602-0199 addresses the second step.

What PM-602-0199 Says About Adverse Factors

The memo instructs USCIS officers to weigh adverse factors including:

Violations of immigration law or admission conditions. This includes overstays, unauthorized employment, failures to maintain nonimmigrant status, and any prior removal or departure order.

Fraud or misrepresentation. Any false testimony or material misrepresentation in prior immigration proceedings weighs heavily against the applicant.

Conduct inconsistent with the purpose of the admission. An applicant who entered on a tourist visa with clear intent to remain and seek immigration benefits may face scrutiny on this ground.

Failure to depart as expected. Applicants who were required to leave the United States and did not, even if they later accrued eligibility to adjust, may face adverse weight.

Availability of consular processing. The memo states that the fact that an applicant could have processed through a consulate abroad is itself an adverse factor. This is one of the more significant points in PM-602-0199: the choice to adjust rather than depart and go through a consulate is treated not as a neutral election but as a factor that requires affirmative justification.

Preconceived intent at entry. Evidence that an applicant entered with a nonimmigrant visa while already intending to seek adjustment, without disclosing that intent, weighs against discretion.

What PM-602-0199 Says About Favorable Factors

On the positive side, the memo directs officers to consider:

Family ties to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. A qualifying spousal or parent-child relationship that forms the basis of the petition weighs in the applicant’s favor, as do ties to additional citizen or LPR family members in the United States.

Long lawful residence. Extended periods of lawful status in the United States are a positive equity.

Community and economic ties. Evidence of employment history, tax compliance, home ownership, community involvement, and similar contributions to U.S. society all weigh favorably.

Good moral character. Absence of criminal history, honest dealing with government agencies, and evidence of positive community standing support discretion.

National interest considerations. In appropriate cases, evidence that the applicant’s continued presence serves the national interest, such as critical employment or professional contributions, supports a favorable exercise of discretion.

The Critical Shift in Burden

One of the most important practical points in PM-602-0199 is this sentence: “the absence of adverse factors, by itself, does not demonstrate such unusual or outstanding equities” sufficient to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.

That language places an affirmative burden on applicants. It is no longer sufficient to file a clean application and present yourself as someone without a negative record. You must affirmatively demonstrate that positive equities justify the grant. A thin I-485 package with no adverse factors but also no developed positive equity record is now more vulnerable than it was before.

Building the Strongest Record Before You File

The practical response to PM-602-0199 is to treat the discretionary record as seriously as the eligibility record.

Gather evidence of family ties beyond the petitioning relationship. Declarations from citizen or LPR children, parents, and siblings describing the hardship they would face if the applicant were required to leave the United States strengthen the positive equity showing.

Document your community presence. Tax returns, employment records, letters from employers, evidence of civic involvement, and religious community participation all contribute to the picture.

If your immigration history includes any period of unlawful presence, any prior status violation, or any prior interaction with immigration enforcement, address it directly rather than hoping it will not be raised. An officer who discovers an undisclosed adverse factor mid-adjudication views the application differently than one who reviews a file that acknowledges the issue and explains why the positive equities still outweigh it.

At Strasser Asatrian LLC, we prepare adjustment of status applications with the full discretionary record in mind from the outset. If you are considering filing Form I-485 or have a pending application that you would like evaluated in light of the new guidance, we are available to assess your case.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific. Please consult an attorney about your individual situation.

How USCIS Weighs Discretion in Adjustment of Status Cases