A coalition of immigrant organizations, labor unions, university professors, and permanent residency applicants filed a federal lawsuit against two policies of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that tighten the requirements for obtaining a green card without leaving the country.
The legal action, filed on October 5, 2026 in the Federal Court for the District of Massachusetts, challenges a May memorandum that reinforces the discretionary criteria for approving status adjustments and an August directive that allows the denial of certain immigration applications without first providing the opportunity to submit additional evidence.
The plaintiffs argue that both measures could lead to family separations, work disruptions, and challenges for immigrants who are already living legally in the United States and are seeking to obtain permanent residency.
The procedure, identified as American Association of University Professors et al. v. Mullin et al., case file 1:26-cv-14527, is currently in its initial phase. The filing of the lawsuit does not automatically suspend the challenged policies.
The documents and details of the process can be consulted on the official litigation page published by Democracy Forward, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs.
The first policy: stricter requirements to obtain a green card within the U.S.
The first measure in question is the memorandum PM-602-0199, issued by USCIS on May 21, 2026, which characterizes the adjustment of status within the United States as a discretionary benefit of an extraordinary nature, rather than an ordinary alternative to consular processing.
The official USCIS document reminds us that meeting the legal requirements to apply for permanent residency does not necessarily guarantee approval when the legislation grants discretion to the agency.
According to the plaintiffs, the new interpretation allows for a negative consideration of a person's application for residency within the United States rather than processing an immigrant visa at a consulate abroad.
The policy also stipulates that certain unfavorable factors should be balanced with unusual or particularly significant positive circumstances.
USCIS, for its part, asserts that the memorandum reaffirms the discretionary nature of numerous status adjustments and the importance of the consular process outlined in immigration law.
This does not mean that all foreigners are required to leave the United States to obtain residency. The document itself acknowledges exceptions, including immigration categories for which adjustment within the country is the legal pathway provided.
CiberCuba reported in May about the tightening of status adjustment criteria and the concerns that this measure raised among immigrants with pending applications.
The second policy: USCIS can deny applications without requesting further evidence
The lawsuit also questions the update PA-2026-05, published on August 5, 2026, which modified the procedures used by USCIS to request additional evidence before resolving certain immigration benefits.
The directive allows officials to deny a request without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when mandatory initial evidence is missing or the case file does not demonstrate eligibility requirements.
According to USCIS, the change aims to reduce incomplete or baseless applications and improve administrative efficiency. The measure applies to pending applications and those submitted since its implementation, except for the relevant legal or regulatory exemptions.
The plaintiffs believe, however, that the joint application of the two policies may particularly harm individuals who submitted their applications before the new evaluation criteria were established.
His argument is that some applicants could receive an unfavorable decision without having had an additional opportunity to provide documentation related to requirements that did not exist when they submitted their application.
This does not imply the elimination of all requests for additional tests: officials retain the authority to issue them when appropriate.
CiberCuba explained in August how USCIS tightened the evidence requirements and what consequences incomplete applications could have.
Who filed the lawsuit and what are they requesting?
Among the plaintiffs are the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), its chapters at Harvard and Boston University, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), several affiliated labor organizations, and Americans for Immigrant Justice.
Six individual applicants for permanent residency are also participating.
The organizations are represented by legal teams from Democracy Forward, American Immigration Council, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and Colombo & Hurd.
The lawsuit challenges the legality of the policies under the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act and argues that the agency exceeded its authority or adopted criteria inconsistent with the guarantees of the immigration process.
The plaintiffs request that the court provisionally block the measures and later nullify them, in addition to demanding that USCIS review the affected applications in accordance with the applicable law and precedents.
So far, the presentation of the case does not constitute a judicial victory for the plaintiffs nor does it by itself modify the existing procedures.
How does this lawsuit affect Cubans who are waiting for residency?
The demand is of particular interest to Cubans seeking permanent residency in the United States, but it is important to distinguish between the different immigration procedures.
The Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 establishes a specific pathway for certain citizens or nationals of Cuba who, among other requirements, have been inspected and admitted or placed in immigration parole and have accumulated at least one year of physical presence in U.S. territory.
This pathway should not be confused with ordinary adjustments based on family or work requests.
In fact, a federal court in Florida previously reviewed the application of memorandum PM-602-0199 to a group of Cuban applicants in the case Acosta Reynoso v. USCIS.
In a court ruling from August 2026, the court noted the Government's position that the memorandum does not apply to applications under the Cuban Adjustment Act and found that argument persuasive, given that Cuban legislation establishes a special pathway for individuals physically present in the United States.
That statement allows for the distinction between the two legal regimes, but it does not mean that all Cuban applications must be automatically approved nor that their files are exempt from other immigration regulations.
The Cuban Adjustment Act itself includes an evaluation of eligibility and discretion, and USCIS's general policy on documentary evidence may be relevant for certain applications, including files submitted through Form I-485.
On the other hand, a Cuban citizen applying for residency through a family petition, work-related request, or another category different from the Cuban Adjustment Act may find themselves in a different legal situation.
The specific scope will depend on the method used, the available documentation, and the circumstances of each case.
The discussion also arises when the wait times to obtain the green card through the Cuban Adjustment Act have increased significantly, according to official statistics recently analyzed by CiberCuba.
What should applicants with a pending status adjustment do?
The filing of this application does not automatically change the deadlines, requirements, or the status of the cases that USCIS is processing.
Therefore, those with a pending application should pay attention to official notifications, keep their contact information updated, and ensure that the submitted documentation meets the requirements corresponding to their immigration category.
It is also important to respond within the indicated timeframe to any request for additional evidence and not to assume that USCIS will always provide an opportunity to complete an insufficient application.
If a person receives a denial, has doubts about their eligibility, or is considering leaving the United States to continue a process, they should consult with an immigration attorney or an accredited legal representative beforehand, as the consequences can vary significantly based on their immigration history.
For now, the two contested policies remain in effect while the judicial process continues in Massachusetts.
The main new development will be to determine whether the court will grant any precautionary measures that limit their application, or, conversely, allow USCIS to continue using them while the merits of the lawsuit are being decided.
Related videos:
Filed under: