Trump Administration's New Rule: Temporary Visa Holders Must Return Home to Apply for Green Cards
The Trump administration has once again tightened immigration policy. On the 22nd, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that in the future, most temporary visa holders who are lawfully residing in the United States and wish to apply for permanent residency—commonly known as a "green card"—will be required to return to their home countries and apply through U.S. consular offices abroad, rather than continuing the decades-long practice of adjusting their status directly within the U.S.
The announcement immediately triggered strong backlash from immigration lawyers, human rights groups, and advocacy organizations, criticizing the policy for breaking up families, disrupting business hiring practices, and potentially facing legal challenges.
USCIS spokesperson Kaler stated in a statement that the new policy represents a "return to the original intent of the law," ensuring foreigners "properly" use the U.S. immigration system.
"Going forward, any foreign national temporarily residing in the U.S. who wishes to obtain a green card must return to their home country for the application, unless exceptional circumstances apply," he said. He added that this measure would reduce instances of individuals remaining in the U.S. after their applications are denied, thereby slipping into unlawful status.
Under current U.S. regulations, many individuals holding student visas, work visas, or other nonimmigrant visas can apply for permanent resident status through an "Adjustment of Status" process while remaining in the United States. For example, foreign students hired after graduation, workers with employer support for immigration petitions, or spouses of U.S. citizens can all pursue green cards via this route.
However, the new policy reclassifies this practice as a "special relief," meaning that the vast majority of applicants will now need to leave the country and complete the green card application process at U.S. embassies or consulates overseas.
Kaler emphasized that nonimmigrant visa holders—including students, short-term workers, and visitors—are inherently intended to stay in the U.S. only temporarily and for specific purposes.
"Our system was designed so they would leave the U.S. after their visit ends. Their presence should not serve as a first step toward obtaining a green card."
The U.S. government also stated that shifting more cases to overseas consular processing would free up resources at USCIS, allowing it to prioritize other critical matters such as visas for victims of violence and human trafficking, and naturalization applications.
In recent months, the Trump administration has consistently tightened legal immigration policies, including restricting asylum applications, suspending certain visa processing, and expanding deportation operations. Many observers view the latest move as another step in the administration’s broader campaign against legal immigration. The USCIS has not yet announced the full implementation date for the new policy, nor has it defined what constitutes "exceptional circumstances."
According to NBC News, former USCIS official Rand pointed out that approximately 1 million people apply for green cards annually, about half of whom do so within the U.S. through adjustment of status. He criticized the policy as being explicitly designed to exclude applicants.
"Let’s remember: Trump has already banned entry for over 100 countries. Now requiring them to leave the U.S. and apply abroad is simply not a viable path."
Bil, director of immigration studies at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, also posted on social media platform X, stating that the adjustment of status mechanism has been one of the primary pathways for legal immigration over the past several decades.
"These individuals are already eligible for permanent residence, and Congress clearly intended for them to remain in the U.S. Now the government demands they leave."
Bil described the Trump administration as "the most anti-legal immigration government in U.S. history" and warned that the new policy will cause 'unmeasurable' damage to legal immigration.
He noted that there are currently around one million pending adjustment of status applications awaiting approval, and last year, during the Thanksgiving period, the administration issued a directive to suspend processing of certain immigration applications as a security measure, further increasing the backlog.
Multiple immigration legal groups have questioned the policy’s legality. According to ABC News, immigration attorney Pomeroy stated that the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly allows legally admitted individuals to adjust their status within the country.
"You cannot overturn congressional legislation with a single executive order," he said. He believes the policy is likely to be quickly blocked in court.
Darrell Dehni, senior government affairs official at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told ABC News that Congress began establishing the in-country adjustment of status framework in the 1950s, partly to prevent family separation and allow employers to retain employees during lengthy visa wait times.
"This legal framework has existed for decades and is highly mature."
She criticized the Trump administration for claiming to target criminals while simultaneously targeting lawful residents who are complying with immigration procedures.
"These individuals entered the U.S. legally or were granted lawful residence. Yet the government, without warning, has completely changed the rules solely through a policy memorandum."
Religious and humanitarian aid organization World Relief condemned the policy as "cruel" and "anti-family."
The U.S. Department of State has already suspended immigrant visa processing in 75 countries, meaning even if applicants are asked to return home, they may not be able to complete interviews and approvals due to logistical delays.
An analysis suggests that while the Trump administration has steadily tightened immigration policies in recent years, previous measures mostly focused on undocumented immigrants, border control, and asylum systems. This move, however, is seen as directly targeting the core of the legal immigration system.
Legal experts anticipate the policy will likely face joint lawsuits from multiple state governments, business groups, and immigration organizations. A key point of contention is whether such a major systemic change should follow normal public consultation procedures instead of being implemented solely through an administrative memorandum.
Some immigration attorneys believe that once fully implemented, the policy could result in large numbers of applicants losing their jobs and legal status, and could severely impact industries in the U.S. that heavily rely on foreign talent, such as technology, healthcare, and higher education.
Sources: rfi
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1865963480569930/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.