Internal Attorney Reference · Privileged Work Product · Not for Distribution
Adjustment of Status · INA § 245

Adjustment of Status (AOS) History

A plain-language reference on how Congress built and widened the green-card-from-inside-the-U.S. process — and how that history answers the new USCIS memo.

What started this

USCIS now calls adjustment of status "extraordinary"

On May 21, 2026, USCIS put out a policy memo, PM-602-0199. Plainly put: when someone applies for a green card from inside the U.S. instead of going back to their home country to do it, the memo tells officers to treat that choice as a point against them — something they now have to make up for with unusually strong circumstances.

Immigration attorneys have two main problems with this. First, calling adjustment "extraordinary" doesn't match what the law actually says or how it grew over time. Second, the memo appears to cherry-pick old court cases — using ones that help its argument and skipping ones that don't.

How to read this

Open one section at a time using the bar above or the headers below. The takeaway across all of them is simple: for about seventy years, Congress kept making adjustment easier and open to more people, which is the opposite of treating it as something rare. Each timeline entry also opens up to show the source behind it.

A lot of this fight is about old Board of Immigration Appeals decisions. The worry: the memo points to a case about fraud to make ordinary green-card applications look "extraordinary," while quietly skipping cases that favor applicants.

Matter of Blas (1974)
Used by the memo. The memo really does lean on this case (confirmed in the memo's own text) to say applicants must make up for any negatives with "unusual or even outstanding" good points. But this case was about someone who lied and deceived immigration officials, so it doesn't really fit normal, honest applicants.
15 I&N Dec. 626 (BIA 1974; A.G. 1976) · Interim Decision #2485 ↗ official EOIR decision
Matter of Arai (1970)
Left out. Said that when there's nothing bad in someone's record, officers should usually rule in their favor. The heavier "unusual or outstanding equities" burden only kicks in when there are negatives — not as a starting point. (Worth knowing: the memo's "administrative grace" phrase actually comes from this favorable case, while skipping its balancing test.)
13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970) · Interim Decision #2027 ↗ official EOIR decision
Matter of Cavazos (1980)
Left out. Held that even when someone entered with a plan to stay (preconceived intent), adjustment should as a general rule still be granted for an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen — directly cutting against the memo's framing.
17 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980) · Interim Decision #2750 ↗ official EOIR decision
Matter of Ibrahim (1981)
Left out. Confirmed and refined Cavazos, limiting that favorable rule specifically to the immediate-relative category. Useful to cite alongside Cavazos, not instead of it.
18 I&N Dec. 55 (BIA 1981) · Interim Decision #2866 ↗ official EOIR decision
⚑ Check before you rely on any of this

The history part of this page (the timeline) is well-backed by USCIS and Congressional Research Service sources. The memo itself is linked in the Overview, and its title and its use of the Blas case are confirmed straight from the memo. The four case citations have been verified against legal sources. One thing worth knowing: the harshest "only in extraordinary circumstances" wording actually came from USCIS's press release, not the memo's actual instructions — so it's worth reading the real memo, not just the news about it. For anything going into a filing, pull the official EOIR decisions for Blas, Arai, Cavazos, and Ibrahim and confirm they're still good law. And remember: the older cases come from a time when the law worked differently (that older system ended on 1/1/1977), so they may not fully apply today.