A few notable recent immigration memorandums and an executive order could directly impact numerous immigrants in the U.S.
The past two weeks have brought a wave of measures directly impacting the U.S. immigration system. It’s important for people in the U.S. seeking legal pathways to citizenship to be aware of these significant changes.
We’ll go through them one by one.
Adjustment of Status as an Exception
The first concerns USCIS’s announcement regarding the adjustment of status. In simple terms, adjustment of status is the process by which a person already physically present in the United States applies to become a lawful permanent resident (obtain a Green Card) without having to leave the country for consular processing.
If the applicant meets eligibility requirements and has no bars to admissibility (such as inadmissibility without a waiver, certain unlawful entries, criminal history, etc.), and the case is approved, USCIS grants permanent residency from within the U.S.
The memorandum reminds officers that granting adjustment of status — meaning permanent residency without leaving the country — is an exception. The norm should be that immigrants wait for their case to be resolved in their country of origin. The memo explicitly states that adjustment of status is “a matter of discretion and administrative grace.” In this context, “discretion” implies the government decides on a case-by-case basis, while “administrative grace” means it is an exceptional benefit, not something a person automatically earns by meeting basic requirements.
Those currently in the adjustment of status process may benefit from consulting an immigration attorney immediately to understand how this measure could affect their specific case.
Immigration lawyers expect this guidance to reduce the share of green cards approved through adjustment of status and to push more applicants toward consular processing, which can mean lengthy waits abroad. The burden of proof falls on the immigrant, meaning they must demonstrate why the benefit should be granted, the harm that waiting outside the country could cause, and strengthen positive factors such as employment, family ties, tax compliance, community ties, health concerns, and humanitarian impact. The goal is to show that granting adjustment is beneficial not only for the immigrant and their family, but also for the United States.
If the application is denied, USCIS officers must explain the reasons in writing and why those factors outweigh any positive considerations.
Stronger Enforcement Against Asylum Fraud
Separately, media outlets reported that on May 26, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo signed by DHS General Counsel James Percival. It directs ICE attorneys within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor to develop “anti-fraud policies” designed for “robust enforcement” of existing federal anti-fraud laws.
The memo also specifies that these efforts should include actions against immigration attorneys who submit fraudulent asylum applications.
A denied asylum application does not, by itself, imply fraud. Asylum claims can be denied for many reasons. Fraud is one of them, but applications may also be denied because the harm does not meet the definition of persecution, conditions in the home country have changed, the application was filed more than one year after entry, among other reasons.
Fraud is a ground of inadmissibility for immigration benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The USCIS Policy Manual specifies that, for immigration fraud to exist, all of the following elements must be present:
- The individual obtained or attempted to obtain a benefit under U.S. immigration law.
- The individual made a false representation (statement).
- The false representation was made deliberately (intentionally).
- The false representation was material (relevant to the decision).
- The false representation was made to a U.S. government official, typically an immigration or consular officer.
- The false representation was made with the intent to deceive a government official authorized to decide the case.
- The government official believed the false representation and acted on it in granting the benefit.
To reiterate, DHS has not issued a new regulation; rather, it has called for more active enforcement of existing immigration fraud mechanisms.
The government orders banks to identify certain financial activities as suspicious
On May 19, the Trump administration issued an executive order titled “Restoring Integrity to America’s Financial System.”
The order directs the Treasury Department to issue formal guidance advising financial institutions to treat certain patterns as heightened risk indicators.
Activities considered suspicious include:
- Employers who systematically fail to withhold and pay payroll taxes for workers without work authorization.
- Use of foreign identity documents, accounts held in third-party names, and shell companies to conceal the true owner of funds and disguise payroll payments.
- Off-the-books payments using unregistered money transfer businesses, payment processors, or peer-to-peer payment apps (such as Zelle, Venmo, Cash App, PayPal, Apple Pay, or Google Pay) to evade reporting and/or taxes.
- Small, repeated cash withdrawals or deposits aligned with pay cycles, conducted outside normal payroll systems (structuring).
- Money movements that appear linked to labor trafficking or forced labor, including commingling such funds with “legitimate” income or sending them abroad.
- Use of an ITIN to open accounts or obtain credit without verified legal status, treated as a risk factor when it may be tied to the employment of unauthorized workers.
The order aims to “combat risks to national security and public safety caused by illicit cross-border financial activity,” as well as risks to the financial system from “providing credit or financial services to populations that are inadmissible and subject to removal.”
An ITIN, or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, is a number used to identify individuals who must file taxes but do not have, or are not eligible to obtain, a Social Security Number (SSN).
Experts expect more documentation requests and, in some cases, tighter access for ITIN‑only customers, though the order itself does not mandate account closures or outright denials. While the order acknowledges that the ITIN is legitimate for tax purposes, it treats it as a risk signal when used to open accounts or request credit without a verified immigration status, especially when there are indications of unauthorized employment.
