USCIS’s New Adjustment of Status Memo: The New Interview Questions Immigrants Should Expect — And How To Answer Them
On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a policy memorandum emphasizing that Adjustment of Status (“AOS”) is an “extraordinary” discretionary benefit and an “act of administrative grace.”
Since the release of the memo, immigration attorneys around the country have begun reporting changes in interview questioning at local field offices. Our office also reviewed communications circulating among attorneys discussing new questions being asked during marriage-based Adjustment of Status interviews after the memo was released.
One attorney reported that a USCIS officer specifically stated these questions reflected new instructions being discussed internally regarding the memo.
The reported questions included:
“Why did you apply for Adjustment of Status instead of Consular Processing?”
“Are there any factors that would prevent you from pursuing Consular Processing?”
“Do you have any family still living there?”
“Why did you decide not to return to your country when your authorized stay expired?”
These are not traditional marriage-fraud questions.
These are discretionary and immigrant-intent questions.
And they provide an important glimpse into how USCIS may begin implementing the new memo moving forward.
What USCIS Appears To Be Doing
The new memorandum repeatedly emphasizes:
compliance with immigration laws,
temporary intent,
overstays,
unauthorized employment,
parole compliance,
and whether applicants bypassed the “ordinary” consular process.
The concern for many immigration attorneys is not that USCIS is suddenly inventing discretion. Adjustment of Status has always been discretionary under INA §245.
The concern is that USCIS now appears to be elevating discretionary analysis into a much more central part of interviews and adjudications.
In other words:
Applicants may no longer be evaluated only on whether they technically qualify.
They may increasingly be evaluated on:
why they remained,
how they explain their immigration history,
whether they appear credible,
and whether they “deserve” favorable discretion.
That is a significant practical shift.
The Biggest Mistake Applicants Can Make
The worst thing applicants can do right now is:
panic,
memorize fake answers,
exaggerate,
speculate,
or attempt to “sound like a lawyer.”
USCIS officers are trained to evaluate:
consistency,
credibility,
demeanor,
and whether answers align with the evidence.
The strongest answers are usually:
truthful,
calm,
concise,
and factually grounded.
The weakest answers are often:
overly rehearsed,
defensive,
absolute,
or emotionally reactive.
Question #1: “Why did you apply for Adjustment of Status instead of Consular Processing?”
This question goes directly to the heart of the memo.
USCIS appears to be trying to determine:
whether applicants intentionally bypassed consular processing,
whether they remained for convenience only,
or whether there were legitimate reasons for pursuing Adjustment of Status inside the United States.
Weak Answer
“Because it was easier.”
That answer can sound like:
avoiding the process,
gaming the system,
or treating Adjustment as a shortcut.
Stronger Example Answer
“After consulting with counsel, we understood Adjustment of Status was legally available in our situation. Remaining together in the United States was important for our family stability, employment, and daily life together.”
Why this works:
acknowledges legality,
sounds reasonable,
and focuses on family unity.
Another Strong Example
“Based on my immigration history, departing the United States could have created additional legal complications and uncertainty for our family. We pursued the lawful option available to us.”
This is especially important in overstay or unlawful presence situations.
Question #2: “Are there any factors that would prevent you from pursuing Consular Processing?”
This question is extremely important.
USCIS officers may be evaluating:
hardship,
inadmissibility risks,
family separation,
financial consequences,
and overall equities.
This is essentially a discretionary hardship question disguised as an interview question.
Weak Answer
“I just don’t want to.”
This sounds dismissive and unpersuasive.
Stronger Example Answer
“Yes. Prolonged separation from my spouse and family would create significant emotional and financial hardship for our household.”
Simple, credible, and effective.
Another Strong Example
“Based on my immigration history, departure could create additional legal barriers and uncertainty regarding when we could reunite as a family.”
This is often highly relevant in unlawful presence cases.
Another Strong Example
“Our household depends heavily on me for childcare and daily responsibilities, and separation would create major hardship for our family.”
Very strong in family-based cases involving children.
Question #3: “Do you have any family still living there?”
This question is often designed to evaluate:
ties abroad,
relocation feasibility,
and whether the applicant truly has compelling U.S. equities.
Weak Answer
“No, everyone is gone.”
(when clearly untrue)
Credibility matters enormously.
Stronger Example Answer
“Yes, I still have extended family there, but my immediate family life and daily responsibilities are now centered here in the United States.”
This answer works because it is:
balanced,
truthful,
and not manipulative.
Another Strong Example
“Some relatives still live there, but my spouse, household, and long-term life are established here in the United States.”
Simple and persuasive.
Another Strong Example
“I still have some family there, but I no longer have the same support structure or stability there that I once had.”
Human and believable.
Question #4: “Why did you decide not to return to your country when your authorized stay expired?”
This may become one of the most important questions after the memo because it directly reflects the memo’s focus on:
failure to depart,
overstays,
and conduct inconsistent with temporary admission.
This is no longer just:
“Did you qualify?”
It is increasingly:
“Why should we exercise favorable discretion despite your overstay?”
Catastrophic Answer
“Because I wanted a green card.”
Depending on timing and visa category, that answer can create serious problems.
Stronger Example Answer
“As my relationship and family circumstances evolved, my plans changed and we began exploring lawful immigration options together.”
This answer:
sounds natural,
avoids sounding preplanned,
and explains changed circumstances.
Another Strong Example
“At the time I entered, I intended to comply with my temporary stay. Over time, significant personal and family circumstances changed, and we later pursued lawful immigration options.”
Excellent wording for many cases.
Another Strong Example
“Our relationship became much more serious while I was here, and after discussing our future together we decided to pursue the legal immigration process available to us.”
Very strong in marriage-based cases.
Why These Questions Matter So Much
Historically, many Adjustment interviews focused heavily on:
shared finances,
cohabitation,
relationship legitimacy,
and marriage fraud concerns.
Those issues still matter.
But these new questions strongly suggest officers may now also focus heavily on:
intent at entry,
compliance with temporary status,
justification for remaining,
and discretionary equities.
That is a major shift in interview philosophy.
What Applicants Should Do Right Now
1. Stop Taking Interview Advice From Social Media
Many viral immigration videos dramatically oversimplify complex legal issues.
One poorly worded answer can create enormous problems.
2. Review Your Immigration Timeline Carefully
Applicants should know:
entry dates,
visa categories,
prior filings,
employment history,
addresses,
and relationship timelines.
Inconsistencies create credibility issues.
3. Prepare Thoughtfully — Not Robotically
The goal is not memorization.
The goal is understanding:
why the officer is asking the question,
what legal issues may be implicated,
and how to answer truthfully without creating unnecessary legal problems.
4. Organize Positive Equities
The memo strongly suggests officers are being encouraged to weigh discretionary factors more heavily.
Applicants should proactively document:
family ties,
children,
tax history,
church/community involvement,
volunteer work,
hardship evidence,
employment history,
and overall moral character.
5. Work With Experienced Immigration Counsel
What once may have seemed like a routine interview may now require:
strategic preparation,
detailed timeline review,
discretionary analysis,
and potentially litigation-aware case strategy.
Final Thoughts
Adjustment of Status is not dead.
Congress has not eliminated these pathways.
The law itself has not changed.
But USCIS is clearly signaling that:
discretion,
immigrant intent,
compliance with immigration laws,
and overall credibility
will matter far more moving forward. Applicants should not panic. But they absolutely should prepare carefully.
In today’s immigration environment, one poorly phrased answer can create unnecessary complications — while a truthful, thoughtful, and well-prepared explanation can make an enormous difference.