The USCIS memorandum issued on May 21, 2026 marks one of the most consequential shifts in modern U.S. immigration policy and will disproportionately impact immigrant communities from countries like Nepal. The memo fundamentally reframes Adjustment of Status (AOS) not as a routine immigration pathway, but as an “extraordinary” discretionary relief that should only be granted sparingly and should not replace ordinary immigrant visa processing through U.S. consulates abroad.

This policy becomes especially significant in light of another administration memorandum reportedly suspending or restricting immigrant visa processing for approximately 75 countries, including Nepal. As traditional immigrant visa pathways through U.S. embassies and consulates became increasingly uncertain or inaccessible, many Nepali nationals already present in the United States—or those entering later with temporary visas—began relying on adjustment of status inside the United States as the only realistic route to permanent residence.

For years, individuals entering on B1/B2 visitor visas, F-1 student visas, or humanitarian parole often adjusted status after marriage to U.S. citizens or through other family-based categories. Although B1/B2 and F-1 are single-intent visas requiring temporary intent at entry, immigration law historically allowed many individuals who entered legally to later pursue permanent residence through adjustment of status. In immediate relative (“IR”) cases involving spouses of U.S. citizens, visa overstays and many immigration status violations were routinely forgiven during adjustment proceedings.

The new memorandum directly challenges that long-standing framework. USCIS now instructs officers to treat adjustment of status as an exceptional remedy rather than a normal immigration process. The memo repeatedly emphasizes that nonimmigrants and parolees are expected to depart the United States after the purpose of their admission ends, and that remaining in the country to seek permanent residence may weigh heavily against them as a matter of discretion.

The memo also draws a sharp distinction between single-intent and dual-intent visa categories. USCIS acknowledges that dual-intent visas such as H-1B legally allow an individual to maintain temporary status while simultaneously intending to immigrate permanently. However, most Nepali immigrants do not enter through H-1B pathways. Instead, many rely on visitor visas, student visas, parole, or other temporary categories that were never formally designed to permit immigrant intent.

As a result, the practical route many immigrants used—entering lawfully and later adjusting status within the United States—has effectively been narrowed or shut down.

The memorandum repeatedly describes adjustment of status itself as an “extraordinary” form of relief. Although USCIS does not clearly define what circumstances qualify as extraordinary, the memo suggests that only applicants with unusually strong humanitarian factors, exceptional family equities, national-interest considerations, or other compelling circumstances may warrant favorable discretion. It further cites prior immigration decisions stating that applicants may need to demonstrate “unusual or even outstanding equities” to overcome negative factors such as overstays, visa violations, or conduct inconsistent with the original purpose of admission.

This change carries devastating consequences for immigrant families. Previously, individuals who entered the United States legally—even if they later overstayed their visa or violated status—could often still adjust status through marriage to a U.S. citizen without leaving the country. Under the new policy direction, many applicants may instead be pressured into consular processing abroad.

That creates a dangerous legal trap

Once individuals depart the United States after accruing unlawful presence, they may trigger statutory bars preventing their return for years. Those with extended unlawful presence could face lengthy inadmissibility periods before they are allowed to reenter the country. Families that once could remain united through adjustment of status inside the United States may now face prolonged separation.

The consequences extend beyond visa overstays. Individuals with relatively minor criminal records or prior immigration violations who previously may still have qualified for adjustment of status inside the United States could become permanently inadmissible during consular processing abroad. Consular officers often apply inadmissibility standards far more rigidly, and applicants denied overseas frequently have little meaningful opportunity to reunite with their spouses or children in the United States.

For immigrant communities—particularly Nepalis affected by immigrant visa restrictions abroad—the policy functions as a form of implicit deportation. The memorandum does not explicitly order removals, but it systematically dismantles one of the few remaining practical pathways to legalization for many immigrants already living in the United States. By discouraging adjustment of status, increasing scrutiny of immigrant intent, and pushing applicants toward overseas consular processing—where inadmissibility bars become far more dangerous—the policy effectively pressures immigrants to leave the country without any certainty they will ever be permitted to return.

In effect, the combined impact of immigrant visa restrictions abroad and the new USCIS memorandum creates a closed immigration system: immigrant visas through consulates are restricted, while adjustment of status inside the United States is now treated as a rare exception rather than a workable legal pathway. For many Nepali immigrants and similarly situated communities, the result is profound legal uncertainty, family separation, and the erosion of one of the last viable avenues to permanent residence in the United States.

The memorandum is also likely to trigger immediate legal challenges. Immigration advocates, civil rights organizations, and affected communities are expected to argue that the policy unlawfully narrows statutory adjustment rights created by Congress and improperly converts discretionary analysis into a de facto categorical denial system for broad groups of immigrants. Because the policy may disproportionately affect nationals from certain countries, including Nepal, while undermining long-established family-based adjustment practices, the possibility of class action litigation appears increasingly imminent. Legal challenges may focus on due process concerns, arbitrary and capricious agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, unequal treatment of similarly situated applicants, and the humanitarian consequences of forced family separation.

((Author Laxman Adhikari is attorney at Adhikari Law & Associates, San Francisco. This article reflects the author’s personal views and for legal advice, please contact his office at 415 941 9312.))