A lawsuit has been filed against USCIS over the Adjustment of Status Policy Memo and the Denial without RFE policy

A lawsuit over the adjustment of status memo is here. On October 5, 2026, a group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against USCIS, American Association of University Professors et al. v. Markwayne Mullin (Case No. 1:26-cv-14527, D. Mass.), to reverse the past enforcement and to block any further enforcement of the new policy that USCIS announced in its Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, dated May 21, 2026. For further details on that policy memorandum, please click here to view my previous blog article on that topic. In the meantime since then, USCIS introduced a new policy of allowing its examiners to deny petitions and applications without issuing a Request For Evidence (“RFE”) or a Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOID”) if the examiner believes that the applicant or petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that the self-petitioner, beneficiary, or applicant has a case approvable at the time of filing. If you would like to see the public announcement and a link to the policy memo itself, please click here to visit the relevant page of USCIS’s website.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that USCIS had violated the existing laws in six different ways.

• Count I: Violation of the INA and the APA (Contrary to Law and in Excess of Statutory Authority) — Challenges the “Adjustment of Status (AOS) Policy” (PM-602-0199), arguing that Congress never authorized USCIS to treat a domestic adjustment request as a presumptive negative factor requiring “unusual or outstanding” justification.
• Count II: Violation of the INA and the APA (Unlawfully Retroactive) — Argues that applying the new AOS Policy and the “Denial Policy” (PA-2026-05) together to applications filed before their effective dates operates as an unlawfully retroactive penalty without statutory authorization.
• Count III: Violation of the APA (Arbitrary and Capricious) — Alleges both policies are substantively unreasonable and procedurally flawed because the government failed to consider serious reliance interests, provided a facially implausible justification, and completely ignored the combined disruptive impact of the rules.
• Count IV: Violation of the APA (Notice and Comment / Lack of Lawful Procedure) — Contentious because the Trump-Vance administration made these legislative rules effective immediately without providing the legally mandated 30-day publication buffer or the opportunity for public notice and comment.
• Count V: Violation of the APA (Accardi Doctrine) — Alleges the AOS and Denial policies violate the Accardi principle because they directly conflict with the agency's own binding regulations, existing Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedents, and the established USCIS Policy Manual.
• Count VI: Violation of the Fifth Amendment (Due Process Clause) — Argues that because eligible noncitizens have a legitimate claim of entitlement to an adjudication, denying pending applications under the Denial Policy without notice or an opportunity to supplement records with new evidence violates constitutional Due Process.

The plaintiffs are requesting the following remedies from the court:

• Vacatur of the Policies: A court order completely setting aside and invalidating the AOS Policy and the Denial Policy under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
• Declaratory Relief: A formal legal declaration from the court stating that these policies are unlawful and violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the APA, and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
• Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief: Court injunctions to immediately block the enforcement of these policies and permanently stop the government from applying them.
• Order for Lawful Adjudication: An order requiring the government to process and adjudicate adjustment of status applications in a manner consistent with existing legal precedent rather than under the challenged administration directives.

Some of the remedies might have legal effect only in Massachusetts within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, but others might have a binding effect on USCIS in all 50 U.S. states and territories. The plaintiffs are suing federal defendants—including the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—challenging federal immigration regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

• Nationwide Injunctions or Vacatur: Under the APA, if a federal judge determines that the challenged USCIS policies are unlawful, the court has the authority to vacate (set aside) the policy completely or issue a nationwide preliminary injunction. If the court grants a nationwide remedy, the federal government is blocked from enforcing those rules anywhere, giving the decision immediate legal effect in all 50 states.

Therefore, this lawsuit has the potential to help and protect immigrants all across the U.S., who are applying for adjustment of status. This case is still in the early stages, since it was filed only 6 days ago. We will monitor its progress and provide updates as they become available. If you would like to read the full complaint and/or track the status of the lawsuit, you can do so on the “PacerMonitor” for the federal court system. Please click here to visit the page on the PacerMonitor where you can track the status of this case. (The full complaint can be found at step 1 of the tracking for this case.)