SPECIAL EDITION: The Administration Just Made It Harder for Afghan Allies to Stay in America
A same-day update because your inboxes, and ours, are full. The full picture is still developing. We will cover this in depth in Tuesday's weekly update.
WHAT HAPPENED
Today, the Friday before Memorial Day weekend, USCIS announced they had made a big policy change yesterday (Thursday, 5/21/2026).
USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, directing immigration officers to treat adjustment of status, the process for applying for a green card from inside the United States, as an “extraordinary” act of discretion to be granted only in exceptional cases. The administration simultaneously told the press that anyone who wants a green card should return to their home country and apply from there.
For Afghan allies, that alternative does not exist. There are no U.S. consular services in Afghanistan. There is no process to apply through. The Taliban controls the country.
The timing is not a coincidence. Releasing a significant policy change on the last business day before a federal holiday is how you minimize coverage and limit the public’s ability to respond. We are publishing this now because Afghan families deserve to know what we know before they spend the weekend in fear, and before the news cycle moves on.
Before we dive too deep, we want to say this isn’t legal advice and our recommendation is that anyone who doesn’t have permanent status or who is worried this may impact them should contact a qualified immigration attorney for advice on their specific case.
WHAT WE KNOW
Who this policy targets. The memo explicitly frames humanitarian parolees as people who were expected to depart the United States and who are now, by seeking a green card, contravening Congressional intent. That framing applies to nearly every Afghan ally who arrived through the 2021 withdrawal. It also applies to anyone who entered on a temporary nonimmigrant visa, including students on F-1 visas, workers on H-1B and other employment visas, and others who have been lawfully present and waiting for their applications to be processed.
The one explicit exception the memo carves out for dual-intent visa holders, like H-1B, is narrow: it says filing for a green card is not inconsistent with maintaining H-1B status. That is not a protection. Those applicants still face the new heightened standard requiring “unusual or even outstanding equities.” It just means their H-1B status alone cannot be held against them.
Who this does not affect. We believe Afghan allies who arrived through Enduring Welcome are not subject to this framework. They arrived through a durable immigration status. We think that this memo does not apply to them but, as ever, the government may surprise us with their cruelty.
What the heightened standard means in practice. Under this memo, a clean record is not enough. Years of lawful presence are not enough. A job, a family, U.S. citizen children, community ties, none of these, by themselves, are sufficient. Applicants must affirmatively demonstrate that their case is exceptional. The administration chose language that makes approval the exception and denial the expectation.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW
We do not yet know exactly how USCIS will implement this.
We do not know whether population-specific guidance targeting Afghans directly is coming, though the memo signals it may.
We do not know the precise timeline for how this will affect pending applications that are already in the queue.
What we can tell you is that if past is prologue, this administration will implement in the most restrictive way the law allows. That has been the consistent pattern across every policy affecting Afghan allies since January 2025. We are not going to tell you otherwise.
WILL THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (APA) PROTECT PENDING APPLICATIONS?
This is the question we are hearing most. The honest answer is: possibly, but not reliably, and not automatically.
The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to go through public notice-and-comment rulemaking before issuing substantive rules that create new obligations or change existing rights. If a court determines this memo is a substantive rule rather than interpretive guidance, it could be challenged as procedurally invalid regardless of its content.
On the specific question of retroactive application to already-filed cases, there is a legal principle that agencies generally should not apply new standards to people who are already in the process under the prior framework. That would normally be a strong argument here.
Here is the problem. The government has drafted this memo with that challenge specifically in mind. By framing it as a “reminder” of “longstanding law” backed by decades of BIA and Supreme Court precedent, USCIS is making a deliberate legal argument: this is not a new rule, it is how the law has always worked, and therefore there is nothing being applied retroactively. Courts may accept that framing.
Our honest assessment is that the “longstanding law” language is a preemptive legal strategy designed to defeat both the notice-and-comment challenge and the retroactivity challenge in one move. It may or may not succeed. The APA is a real tool and litigation is expected. But we cannot tell you it will protect your pending application while that litigation plays out, because adjudicators will be applying this memo to cases in the weeks and months before any court acts.
The strongest near-term legal protection is a preliminary injunction, not a retroactivity argument. That is where litigation partners are focused.
If you have a pending application, do not wait to see how the courts rule. Get to an immigration attorney now.
WHAT WE ARE DOING
AfghanEvac and our legal partners are reviewing this memo. Legal challenges are expected. We are briefing congressional partners. We have issued a public statement and a full explainer.
We will publish a full analysis in Tuesday’s weekly update. If significant developments occur over the weekend, we will publish again.
Afghan allies kept their word to this country. The United States government physically placed many of them on American military aircraft and brought them here. Others fled certain death and crossed into the United States because survival left them no other choice. This memo is the administration’s answer to both groups.
We refuse to accept it. And we will not stop saying so.