In May 2026, LPY Law Group published “USCIS Policy Memo Reframes Adjustment of Status as ‘Extraordinary Relief’ — What It Means for Pending and Future I-485 Applications.” The article discussed USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, which directed officers to approach adjustment of status as a discretionary form of relief and emphasized whether applicants should instead pursue immigrant visa processing abroad.
Applicants addressing Communist Party membership in a green card case may face more than one legal challenge. In addition to determining whether a statutory ground of inadmissibility applies and whether an exception or waiver is available, USCIS may separately consider whether the applicant merits adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. This distinction has become especially important in cases involving Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
For a broader overview of recent developments involving Communist Party membership and U.S. immigration—including Communist Youth League and Young Pioneers membership, employment affiliation, Chinese government scholarships, and USCIS RFEs and NOIDs—see our companion article, “CCP Membership and U.S. Immigration: 2026 Update”.
Inadmissibility and Discretion Are Different Issues
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an applicant must satisfy the applicable eligibility requirements for adjustment of status. Depending on the case, that may include overcoming a ground of inadmissibility through a statutory exception or an available waiver. Even where an inadmissibility issue is resolved, USCIS may still conduct a separate discretionary assessment.
On May 21, 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 memorandum reaffirmed USCIS’s position that adjustment of status under INA § 245 is discretionary for most applicants and directed officers to evaluate whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. The memorandum also framed adjustment of status in relation to the ordinary immigrant visa process abroad, signaling a more restrictive approach to applications filed within the United States.
As discussed in our earlier article, the memorandum’s framing raises important questions about the relationship between USCIS policy and the statutory adjustment framework under INA § 245(a). The statute establishes eligibility requirements for adjustment of status and provides that adjustment may be granted in the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The memorandum does not itself amend the statute. Nevertheless, the practical significance of the memorandum should not be overlooked. Applicants with pending or future I-485 applications should be prepared to address not only threshold eligibility requirements but also any discretionary concerns USCIS raises in their individual cases.
How This May Affect CCP-Related Cases
Over the past few months, we have encountered cases where USCIS has questioned the circumstances of past membership, the evidence offered to establish that membership ended, and whether the applicant’s history supports a favorable discretionary decision. Some notices have treated past membership as an adverse factor even while separately discussing whether the applicant established eligibility for an exception or waiver. These are case-specific positions, not a categorical rule that every former CCP member or former members of affiliated organizations must be denied adjustment of status.
The effect of a particular membership history depends on the facts, the applicable law, the evidence in the record, and the issues USCIS actually raises. Applicants should not assume either that a past membership automatically prevents approval or that demonstrating eligibility for an exception or waiver guarantees approval.
Why the Response Strategy Matters
When USCIS raises both inadmissibility and discretion, the issues need to be evaluated separately and addressed coherently. The appropriate approach will depend on the notice, the applicant’s history, and the procedural posture of the case. A response that focuses on only one issue may leave another unresolved. Likewise, a waiver strategy and a response to discretionary concerns may involve different legal considerations.
When USCIS expressly raises discretion, the response should address the applicant’s complete circumstances not just the negative facts identified in the notice. There is no universal checklist that guarantees approval, and positive equities do not automatically outweigh every adverse factor. Nevertheless, the response should present the favorable evidence affirmatively rather than assume that it speaks for itself.
Applicants should also be aware that USCIS may issue a NOID or denial stating that an I-601 waiver was available but had not been filed. In cases involving possible inadmissibility, it is important to evaluate waiver eligibility early rather than assume USCIS will first issue an RFE. For a broader overview of recent CCP-related developments, see our companion article, CCP Membership and U.S. Immigration: 2026 Update.
Get Case-Specific Legal Guidance
CCP-related adjustment of status cases can involve overlapping questions of statutory eligibility, waiver availability, evidence, and discretion. The right approach cannot be determined from membership dates alone or from another applicant’s outcome.
LPY Law Group assists applicants with complex immigrant visa and adjustment of status matters, including cases involving Communist Party and related organization membership or affilaition, inadmissibility, documentary evidence, and DOS 221(g) as well as USCIS RFEs and NOIDs.
Our services include:
- Reviewing the applicant’s complete immigration and membership history.
- Analyzing INA § 212(a)(3)(D) and potentially applicable exceptions or waiver provisions.
- Evaluating evidence concerning the circumstances and termination of membership.
- Reviewing prior visa applications and identifying potential inconsistencies.
- Preparing a legal response to inadmissibility allegations.
- Addressing discretionary concerns and presenting relevant favorable evidence.
- Organizing documentary evidence and affidavits around the issues raised in the notice.
- Evaluating whether a waiver or another immigration strategy may be appropriate.
The goal is to address the actual legal and factual issues in the case, rather than relying on a generic response to Communist Party membership. A CCP-related RFE or NOID that raises both inadmissibility and discretion can require a more comprehensive strategy than a notice addressing only one issue. Prompt review is especially important because the response deadline may be short.
If USCIS has raised concerns about Communist Party membership or discretion in your I-485 case or if you are preparing to file and know that your history may raise these issues, contact LPY Law Group to discuss your options. Obtaining legal guidance early may help you understand the risks and consider the appropriate course of action before a critical filing or response deadline. Contact us at evaluation@niwus.com.