DHS narrows impact of USCIS green-card apply-abroad directive

A Venezuelan immigrant in Tampa who has been in the United States under asylum status since 2022 told Bay News 9 that the possibility of being sent back to Venezuela while seeking permanent residency caused “panic again.”

Anthony Infante said he began the process to become a permanent resident nine months ago because of the stability it could offer his family. He told Bay News 9 he has a child who is autistic, level 2 and non-verbal, and said he is relying on guidance from his immigration attorney.

The uncertainty followed a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy memo involving green card applications from within the United States. Bay News 9 said the memo stated that people seeking adjustment of status should generally leave the country and apply at a consulate abroad, unless extraordinary circumstances apply.

ABC News reported that USCIS had issued a sweeping policy directive requiring most temporary visa holders and humanitarian parolees living in the United States to return to their home countries to apply for and complete their green card applications. Advocates said it appeared to affect any foreign national with a pending U.S.-filed green card application.

The Department of Homeland Security later narrowed that reading. Newsweek reported that DHS clarified most green card applicants will not be required to leave the United States while their cases are processed, and that the decision will remain discretionary and assessed case by case by immigration officers.

“This was just a reminder to officers of their discretionary authority, which has always existed on a case-by-case basis,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement reported by The New York Times and cited by Newsweek.

ABC reported that DHS said the policy “will result in some aliens who do not merit the discretionary benefit ultimately applying with the Department of State overseas rather than USCIS in the United States.” DHS also said it “will not prevent any alien from obtaining a green card who legitimately and properly qualify.”

The practical difference is large. A blanket apply-abroad rule could separate families, interrupt jobs, disrupt employers and force applicants into consular-processing backlogs or uncertain return routes. A discretionary rule leaves those risks concentrated among people immigration officers decide do not merit in-country processing.

The American Immigration Council excerpt said USCIS had issued conflicting messaging, creating confusion and panic for applicants, employers and practitioners. Newsweek also reported that confusion remains over who could be affected, with details still limited, and that attorneys say some applicants are already being asked new questions during interviews.

The supplied evidence does not verify final USCIS implementation guidance, exact categories exempted or affected, the number of applicants at risk, processing timelines, litigation, or whether future interviews will consistently apply the narrowed interpretation. It verifies the initial broad concern, DHS’s clarification, the discretionary case-by-case framing and at least one family-level example of the uncertainty created.

The cleanest supported conclusion is that the policy dispute shifted from a feared blanket reversal to an officer-discretion problem. For applicants, families, attorneys and employers, the remaining pressure is not only whether people can still qualify for a green card, but whether they can keep pursuing it from inside the United States.