get a green card may be surprised to learn about a change in procedure returning to their home country to apply.

That's the policy policy shift recently announced by the U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency.

U.S.

C I S is the change restores the original intent of us green card laws.

But immigration attorneys argue it up years of precedent and signals a broader crackdown on legal immigration, pathways here to help us understand our mayor.

A test.

I an immigration lawyer with the firm Hughes Soho, Piers Resnick.

And in limited and Shannon, Shepard and immigration lawyer with the firm Immigration Attorneys, LLP.

Thanks to both for joining us.

I'm Shannon Shepperd.

Let's start with sort of outlining the green card application process and how it typically works.

What is a green card and what are the steps that usually takes to get one?

>> Thank you.

The green card is the lawful permanent resident status that foreign nationals can attain while remaining in the United States.

Usually for decades, Congress for decades ago.

Sorry, Congress initiated this law which allows for certain foreign nationals to apply for a green card without having to return to their home countries.

The process usually applies to either foreign nationals who are employed here on employment.

The says that are temporary and their companies want them to become permanent or to family based petitions, spouses of U.S.

citizens being the most common and is a green cards sort of a long-term status is.

Is that something that you can have Yes, it is indefinite.

The green card itself expires after 10 years and you have to apply to renew it.

But the status itself does not expire unless some issue with maintaining the status on what could be said that.

But in this one expires after 10 years it is it's typically you don't have to go to your home country to make that application.

Correct.

You can usually do within states.

>> Correct.

If you are either here lawfully or married to a U.S.

citizen and you entered lawfully.

>> Then you can apply for adjustment of status without having to return to the country.

>> Know your breakdown, this policy change for us.

And what did you Yes, announced last week.

>> So on Friday, us yes, released this policy.

Memos say that adjustment of being able to get your green card stateside as an extraordinary form of discretionary relief.

So it's something that where it's available, individual should concert meaning that should go to a consulate or embassy to get their great card instead of applying stateside.

And this is just up ending decades of statutory interpretation of case loft practice because I was never the case.

The case law actually says that if an individual meets the requirements of adjusting status of meaning there's nothing that prevents them from getting a green card generally adjustment of status should be granted.

So what they are saying that's actually not a factual representation of the law.

What's your reaction to this move?

It's just another way that this administration is going against illegal immigration.

They don't want people to be able to stay in the United States lawfully and they're trying every path possible to be able to prevent people from staying here with their families.

I'm Shannon.

Give us a sense of the scope.

How many green card applicants do we think there are in the U.S.

how many people could be affected by this?

So it's it's hundreds of thousands.

>> In 2024, I believe there were about half a million green cards granted and then number rose in 2025.

So this is a huge population that would be affected by this policy.

How would you use the I S go about enforcing a change like this, you know, and could.

>> A green card applicant risk being deported if they just showed up for that application.

>> These are things that us yes has not made clear through their is what they're going to do for say someone who already has a pending adjustment of status application.

Can they still go?

We've we've just been hurt hearing anecdotally this week that officers at the immigration office are asking additional questions such as why can't you just go to your home country and the consular process, but no decisions have been made yet on these cases.

So we just don't know how it can impact those with Artie pending cases and in the future will be able to even apply.

>> What's that tell you when you hear that that applicants are hearing different may be strange questions.

>> It seems like the questions are designed to bring out.

>> Either some flaw in there history some way to not exercise the discretion that us normally would exercise in allowing them to stay here while they go through this process.

>> Mayor, what you heard from your clients or the interest they worried?

>> Yeah, absolutely.

Especially clients already had their applications understood the law to be a certain way at the time that they applied and that they pay their fees and the rules are just being change halfway through.

It's really unfair.

And it's creating a lot of uncertainty and it's really a pending peoples plans for their future.

And how long process typically take me to people already have their applications in.

I mention they're waiting for some time.

Yes, a really varies.

We have seen some that there are significant delays have multiple years for for the most part.

If I had a client coming to me last week, I would say within 9 to 12 months we should have a decision on your case channel.

What are you hearing from your point?

>> Much of the same.

Everyone is is very confused by the policy.

They're very panicked.

They're worried about it.

Like you said, being subject to deportation, even though they were trying to follow the law and doing the right thing.

So the you know, this.

Policy memo seems to trying punish people who've actually done the right thing the whole Mayor us?

as you mentioned, they said that this change is consistent with longstanding immigration law.

They write, quote.

>> We are returning to the original intent of the law to ensure aliens navigate our nation's immigration system properly.

It also calls the adjustment of status.

Like you said, an extraordinary form of relief what do you make out of that with?

Is the agency correctly arguing original intent of the law?

>> No, not at all.

So, you know, about 1.1 million individuals have been granted green cards in 2023. of those around 600,000 did a thread just status stateside in around 500,000 3 consular processing so in their home countries.

Yes, so the majority of people were going green cards have actually done it through the adjustment of status process, calling it a loophole that people are trying to circumvent the proper way of doing it is just absolutely absurd.

The law is very clear that there are pathways for people to obtain their green cards while they are here in the United States.

And there's no specific preference in the law for individuals to go abroad.

So absolutely not based.

So it sounds like the law doesn't say much governing green card issuance about where you're supposed to apply from.

>> No.

So the law clearly says that individuals who are eligible are able to apply stateside, including spouses, be U.S.

citizens, parents of U.S.

citizens, children at minor children U.S.

citizens and certain employment base categories.

But there is no need for them to travel abroad and that there's clear congressional intent in part because Congress understands that people have lives here.

They have employment.

They have their families and it really that's a huge barrier for them.

If they have to travel abroad and they're the time and the expense to have to do that, especially since lot of people aren't even eligible to go to their home country to be able to get their green cards.

If you're here unlawfully for more than a year, if you travel abroad, you trigger a 10 year or that you're not able to return.

So individuals who are married to U.S.

citizens, for example, and overstay their visa from when they were very young.

This process isn't actually viable for them.

They would have to apply for a waiver multiple years.

The process will probably years or more.

Shannon, U.S.

U.S.

is that there could be exceptions to this policy change in, quote, extraordinary circumstances.

>> What are extraordinary circumstances?

>> Well, that's another thing they failed to define when they issued this memo.

typically when someone does need a waiver, like was mentioning, they look at hardship factors.

So if it's a family base case, you know, their family ties, their length of residents here, their employment.

you know, if there's any medical conditions in the family, things like that, this memo did mention showing that you at of national benefit or economic benefits.

The United States we can speculate that might mean that employment base petitions would be considered within that factor.

But we just don't know yet.

And so it's really hard advise our clients as to what kind of things they should be doing are gathering in order to to avail of this process.

>> There have also been reports of months long delays for the renewal process for Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals or DACA recipients.

Does the Green Card announcement?

Does this represent?

Do you think a larger shift by the administration to sort of go after legal pathways of immigration?

>> Yes, definitely.

There has been a just a systematic chipping away at the processes that were previously available.

So Doc is a great example.

Those people who have brought their here as children and before we were seeing renewals in 2 to 3 months now, it's 7, 8 months.

And so their status expires during that time.

And that puts them in a in a really awful position.

>> To that point, are there methods of sort of legal immigration that you're you know, sort of changes happened to or efforts that are better.

diminishing those efforts basically.

>> Yet the one that comes to mind is temporary protected status.

Tps, which is available for people who the Department of Homeland Security has determined that home country is not safe to return to either due to poor national natural disaster.

Something like that.

>> And >> Department of Homeland Security is trying slowly to scale back on those protections for people who who are in that.

That situation, it would seem to me also that like you mentioned, 1.0, 1 million people in they are theirs.

>> You know, there are only so many people for whom are eligible for a green card process anyway, right to it seems like.

This is the best route to go after big Does it hit a large group of people who are attempting to stay in the United States for, you know, either to be a family or to work.

Yeah.

So by definition, these are people who either have employment base ties or family based eyes in the U.S.

So going after this subset of individuals really doesn't make any sense.

What is mostly going to happen is that people, you know, are going through this process.

If the scope of the policy memo is really as broad as it could be based on what they're saying, this is going to funnel a lot of people in to remove all proceedings having to see an immigration judge where they will have to read.

The judge will revisit their application determine whether they're eligible for adjustment of status or craft show.

The 2 of you will be