What USCIS actually did
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199. The memo says adjustment of status under INA 245 is discretionary and frames it as relief that lets an applicant skip the ordinary immigrant-visa process at a consulate.
The memo tells officers to look at the total record. That includes immigration history, status compliance, work authorization, fraud or misrepresentation issues, family and community ties, employment, education, skills, moral character, and other facts that bear on whether USCIS should exercise discretion favorably.
It also says a denial based on discretion must explain the positive and negative factors considered. That matters. It means a clean, well-documented record is not just background noise. It becomes part of the adjudication path.
What the memo does not do
It does not change the EB1A criteria. It does not change the EB2 NIW Dhanasar test. It does not change the Form I-140 standard. It does not say every person with a pending I-485 must leave the United States.
I also did not find a USCIS line saying officers must categorically favor EB1A or NIW applicants by name. That is too strong.
The better reading is narrower and more useful: EB1A and NIW applicants can often build strong positive equities because the I-140 itself can document exactly why their work matters to the United States. That does not make adjustment automatic. It gives the applicant something real to put on the positive side of the scale.
Why the I-140 matters even more now
An EB1A I-140 asks USCIS to recognize a record of extraordinary ability, sustained acclaim, and continued work in the field. A NIW I-140 asks USCIS to accept that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, that the person is well positioned to advance it, and that the United States benefits from waiving the job offer and labor-certification requirement.
Those are not magic words for the I-485. But they can be serious positive facts if the record is built well.
A weak I-140 leaves you with less to point to. A strong I-140 gives your lawyer a cleaner adjustment story: lawful presence, authorized work, clean conduct, professional value, and a USCIS-adjudicated immigrant petition that already explains the U.S. benefit.
That is why the answer is not to spend the next month refreshing LinkedIn panic posts. The answer is to tighten the record that an officer can read.
The practical risk for EB1A and NIW applicants
The risk is not that PM-602-0199 suddenly turns EB1A and NIW into new categories. It does not.
The risk is that applicants treat the I-485 as a formality after the I-140 and submit a thin adjustment record. If USCIS now wants officers to write a positive-versus-negative discretion analysis, then the adjustment packet may need a cleaner record of status, authorized work, tax compliance, family ties, employment, and U.S. benefit.
That strategy belongs with an immigration lawyer. The I-140 prep still belongs with you. You can organize the facts. You can make the exhibits legible. You can stop letting generic recommendation letters carry arguments they cannot prove.
If you have not filed the I-140 yet
Do not let this memo distract you from filing a better I-140. It should make the I-140 feel more important, not less.
| Workstream | What to control | Weak version |
|---|---|---|
| EB1A criteria | Pick the strongest criteria and map each one to exhibits, page cites, and field-level significance. | Claiming five criteria because the file looks bigger. |
| Final merits | Show one coherent field, one reputation, and evidence that points beyond your employer or immediate team. | A biography that asks the officer to infer acclaim from career seniority. |
| NIW endeavor | Write the future work in one specific sentence, then connect proof to national importance and execution ability. | "I work in AI," "I work in healthcare," or another field label pretending to be an endeavor. |
| U.S. benefit | Explain why your work benefits the country and why waiver of the job offer or labor certification makes sense. | "I am talented" without a waiver-benefit argument. |
| Officer readability | Use an exhibit index, claim-to-proof map, and direct response to the likely objection. | Dropping a document pile and hoping the officer builds the argument for you. |
If you already have an approved I-140
Your next job is not internet debate. Your next job is attorney-supervised adjustment planning.
Ask counsel how the memo affects your status category, immigration history, travel plans, work authorization, dependents, pending I-485, and consular-processing risk. Bring a clean timeline. Bring proof of lawful status. Bring tax and employment documents. Bring the I-140 approval and the strongest parts of the petition record.
If you are on a dual-intent status, the memo acknowledges that adjustment is not inconsistent with maintaining that status. It also says dual intent alone is not enough. Do not turn that into either panic or complacency.
If you are current and choosing between concurrent filing and I-140 first
The same rule still applies: separate the petition question from the status question.
Concurrent filing can be reasonable when the I-140 record is strong, the priority date is current, and counsel is comfortable with the status facts. It can be expensive confusion when the I-140 still has obvious holes.
Do not file the I-485 as a confidence ritual. File it as part of a complete strategy.
Bottom line
PM-602-0199 is real. It deserves attention. It does not deserve to hijack the work you can actually do.
For EB1A and NIW applicants, the highest-control move is still the I-140: a stronger case theory, cleaner exhibits, a tighter officer path, and fewer unsupported claims.
If your I-140 is weak, the adjustment memo is not the problem yet. The record is. Fix that first.
Use the ChatEB1 Self-Filer Guide for EB1A packet structure and the EB2 NIW Kit for proposed-endeavor and Dhanasar mapping before you file or before your lawyer reviews the draft.