For audio listeners, you can listen to our audio version of the News Digest here. You can also join our Immigration News Digest Newsletter here.

• USCIS Adopts More Restrictive Approach to Adjustment of Status Cases
• Proposed End to Duration of Status Could Reshape Student and Exchange Visitor Compliance
• New Zealand Expands English Language Requirements for Work Visa Applicant
• Immigration Attorneys Face Questions Following DHS Asylum Fraud Initiative
• DOJ Supports Five Year Residency Requirement for Lifeline Eligibility

USCIS Adopts More Restrictive Approach to Adjustment of Status Cases

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued a new policy memorandum that changes how officers evaluate adjustment of status applications, signaling a more restrictive approach to discretionary decision making. The guidance emphasizes that obtaining a green card through adjustment of status is a discretionary benefit and that immigrant visa processing abroad should generally be viewed as the preferred pathway to permanent residence.

Under the updated policy, adjudicators are instructed to conduct a broader review of an applicant’s immigration history and consider factors that may weigh against a favorable exercise of discretion. The guidance highlights issues such as prior status violations, conduct inconsistent with the purpose of a nonimmigrant visa, and other adverse immigration history.

Notably, the memorandum places less emphasis on traditional positive factors that have often supported favorable discretionary decisions, such as family ties, employment history, or long-term compliance with immigration requirements. USCIS also indicates that officers may consider why an applicant chose adjustment of status instead of pursuing immigrant visa processing through a U.S. consulate abroad.

The policy could affect a wide range of applicants, including employment-based immigrants, family-sponsored applicants, and individuals pursuing self-petitioned immigration categories. While USCIS confirms that pursuing permanent residence remains permissible for dual intent visa holders, such as H-1B and L-1 workers, maintaining lawful status alone may no longer be sufficient to support a favorable discretionary outcome.

Impact: This policy shift may increase scrutiny of adjustment of status applications and create greater uncertainty for applicants seeking permanent residence from within the United States. Employers and foreign nationals may need to reevaluate green card strategies, anticipate additional requests for evidence, and consider whether consular processing could be a more viable option in certain cases.

Proposed End to Duration of Status Could Reshape Student and Exchange Visitor Compliance

A Department of Homeland Security proposal that would eliminate the long standing “duration of status” framework for F students, J exchange visitors, and I foreign media representatives is reportedly moving closer to finalization. If implemented, the rule would replace open ended admission periods with fixed expiration dates recorded on Form I-94 each time an individual enters the United States.

Under the current system, many F, J, and I visa holders may remain in the United States as long as they continue to comply with the terms of their program or status. The proposed rule would require individuals needing additional time to file extension requests with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) before their I-94 expiration date.

The change could have significant consequences for students, exchange visitors, universities, and employers. In addition to creating new filing obligations, the proposal would increase the importance of monitoring I-94 expiration dates, which determine the individual’s authorized period of stay in the United States. The proposal may also:

• Increase USCIS oversight of program changes, transfers, and educational level changes
• Reduce grace periods for certain students and exchange visitors
• Increase the risk of unlawful presence accrual if an extension is not timely filed
• Create additional compliance responsibilities for schools, program sponsors, and employers

Because unlawful presence could begin immediately after an I-94 expiration date, individuals who overlook extension requirements may face significant immigration consequences, including potential three-year or ten-year reentry bars.

Impact: If finalized, this rule would represent one of the most significant changes to student and exchange visitor compliance in decades. Individuals and organizations relying on F, J, and I classifications may need to implement more rigorous tracking and planning processes to avoid status gaps, unlawful presence issues, and disruptions to study or employment activities.

New Zealand Expands English Language Requirements for Work Visa Applicant

New Zealand is broadening its English language requirements for certain foreign workers beginning June 1, 2026. Under the updated policy, applicants for Accredited Employer Work Visas in skill level 3 occupations will now be required to demonstrate English language proficiency, expanding a requirement that previously applied primarily to lower skilled occupations.

Applicants may satisfy the requirement through citizenship from designated English-speaking countries, qualifying work or study experience conducted in English, or approved English language testing. The government has stated that the change reflects the growing number of visa holders in skill level 3 occupations and is intended to support workplace integration and awareness of employment rights.

Several categories remain exempt, including certain seasonal worker programs and AEWV job change applications. New Zealand has also introduced transitional measures to minimize disruption for existing workers. Individuals who already hold a valid AEWV or who previously provided acceptable evidence of English proficiency will generally not be affected by the new requirements.

Impact: The expanded language requirement may lengthen recruitment timelines for employers filling skill level 3 positions and could affect candidate eligibility. Employers and prospective applicants should assess qualification requirements early to avoid delays and ensure compliance with the new standards.

Immigration Attorneys Face Questions Following DHS Asylum Fraud Initiative

Immigration attorneys are closely monitoring the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) recent directive expanding enforcement efforts against alleged asylum fraud. The policy directs U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys to pursue additional enforcement actions involving false statements, fraudulent documentation, and other misconduct in asylum related proceedings.

While DHS has stated that the initiative is intended to protect the integrity of the asylum system and target knowingly fraudulent claims, some immigration practitioners have expressed concern about how the policy will be implemented in practice. In particular, attorneys are seeking clarification on where the government will draw the line between intentional fraud and legitimate legal advocacy on behalf of asylum applicants.

Asylum cases often involve complex facts, evolving country conditions, and credibility determinations that may be subject to differing interpretations. Legal advocates have noted that many claims involve limited documentation or rely heavily on personal testimony, creating uncertainty about how heightened enforcement standards may be applied.

The directive builds on broader administration efforts to increase scrutiny of immigration filings and strengthen enforcement of existing fraud related provisions within immigration law. DHS has indicated that ICE attorneys may pursue penalties in cases involving knowingly false filings or misrepresentations, while continuing to emphasize that valid asylum protections remain available under federal law.

Impact: The announcement signals increased government focus on asylum related fraud and may result in greater scrutiny of filings, supporting evidence, and legal representations. Attorneys and applicants should ensure that asylum submissions are thoroughly documented and carefully reviewed, while monitoring for additional guidance clarifying enforcement standards and expectations.

DOJ Supports Five Year Residency Requirement for Lifeline Eligibility

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken the position that certain immigrants must satisfy a five-year residency requirement before becoming eligible for the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline program, a federal benefit that helps low-income households afford phone and internet services.

The Lifeline program provides discounted telecommunications services to qualifying individuals who participate in certain public assistance programs or meet income-based eligibility requirements. The DOJ’s recent filing argues that federal benefit restrictions enacted by Congress apply to Lifeline and that eligibility for many lawfully present immigrants should not begin until they have met the statutory five-year waiting period.

The position arises in ongoing litigation concerning the scope of federal public benefits available to noncitizens. Supporters of the five-year requirement argue that it aligns with existing federal benefit rules applicable to various assistance programs. Opponents contend that restricting access could create barriers to communication, employment opportunities, healthcare access, and educational resources for immigrant households.

The issue highlights the growing intersection between immigration policy and access to government supported programs, particularly as internet and phone connectivity become increasingly essential for daily life.

Impact: If courts ultimately adopt the DOJ’s interpretation, some lawfully present immigrants may face longer waiting periods before qualifying for Lifeline benefits. The outcome could affect access to affordable communications services for eligible households and may influence how other federal benefit programs are interpreted in the immigration context.

Editor: Jesse Arianna Gonzales