The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a new policy requiring foreigners in the United States seeking a green card to leave the country and apply from their home nations. This change, announced on Friday, has created confusion among immigrants, lawyers, and advocates, and could impact hundreds of thousands of applicants annually.
Under the new guidance, only individuals who provide an “economic benefit or national interest” are likely to be permitted to apply from within the United States. Nonimmigrants, such as students or temporary workers, are explicitly designated as temporary residents who should depart when their authorized period of stay concludes.
Immigration attorney Charles Kuck characterized the policy as “simply an attempt to try to limit and scare people away from the legal immigration process,” further stating, “This is a scare tactic.” He indicated that legal action against the change is anticipated.
Attorney Flavia Santos Lloyd reported that her phone immediately began ringing with clients expressing concern over the implications. Lloyd stated, “It has a chilling effect because we have some cases that we were going to proceed and I can tell already, we should wait and see what’s going on.” She advised clients to “wait and see” while she monitors the situation for further guidance and practical applications.
The State's Hand in Labor Control
The policy memo, intended as guidance for USCIS staffers, has been described by immigration experts as nuanced, leading to widespread confusion regarding its precise meaning. Shev Dalal-Dheini, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, suggested the guidance may be targeting individuals who have overstayed their visas. This includes parents of U.S. citizens who remained after a visa expired, employees transferred to the United States, or those in the country on visas specific to clergy and other religious workers.
Crucially, the policy appears to exempt certain categories of labor deemed essential to capital. Kevin Miner, a partner with the immigration law firm Fragomen, stated that people on employment-based visas, such as H-1Bs, are expected to be unaffected. Miner noted that dual-intent visas were specifically mentioned in the memo as areas of possible exception, suggesting that “those probably are cases that will continue to precede business as usual and that we won’t see a significant impact.” This distinction highlights the state’s role in facilitating the flow of labor that directly serves corporate interests while restricting others.
New questions have already emerged in green card interviews under the new guidance. One applicant, seeking a green card based on marriage to a U.S. citizen, was asked why they applied to adjust status in the United States instead of returning to their home country, whether anything would prevent them from applying there, and if they still had family in their home country. Another applicant was instructed to file a form demonstrating why they should be allowed to apply from the United States, with evidence required to prove they would not be a “financial burden or a public charge.” Such evidence included a 2025 tax return, a letter from an employer stating salary, and bank statements, explicitly linking immigration status to economic utility for capital.
Excluding the Dispossessed, Protecting Capital
The policy has also raised concerns that companies may be deterred from pursuing green cards for their clients, further tightening the control over labor mobility. Lloyd believes the policy will indeed deter some companies from doing so, contributing to the overall chilling effect on immigrant workers.
Matthew Soerens, the U.S. director of church mobilization for World Relief, expressed “hope” and “expectation” that the guidance might not apply to refugees, who are required to process green cards a year after arriving and cannot return home due to risks. However, the Trump administration has already drastically reduced the number of refugees admitted into the United States this year, limiting them to “white South Africans.” This reveals the racialized and class-based nature of state immigration policy, which prioritizes certain populations while excluding others deemed undesirable or economically unproductive. People who entered under humanitarian parole, including those with existing family in the United States or who married a U.S. citizen, could also be impacted.