Is New Green Card Guidance ‘Contrary To The Law’?

A recent US immigration policy update has triggered widespread concern among Indians living and working in the United States, particularly those waiting for employment-based green cards after years, or even decades, in the immigration queue.

In a conversation on The Gist with StratNews Global’s Ketki Angre, US immigration attorney Rekha Sharma-Crawford said the anxiety stems from a USCIS policy that appears to prioritise consular processing abroad over adjustment of status within the United States. While both pathways have long existed under US immigration law, Sharma-Crawford argued that the new guidance effectively pressures applicants to leave the country and complete green card processing through US embassies overseas.

USCIS is applying long-standing law and prior court decisions to require certain aliens with temporary visas who decide they want to permanently reside in the U.S. to return to their home countries to apply for permanent visas through the @StateDept.

We’re returning to the… pic.twitter.com/E2AFZkds5m

— USCIS (@USCIS) May 22, 2026

“The law itself has not changed,” she said, noting that adjustment of status has been available for decades. What has changed, according to her, is how the administration appears to be interpreting and implementing the process.

The announcement, released ahead of the Memorial Day long weekend, created immediate confusion among immigrants who struggled to obtain clarification. Subsequent guidance introducing exceptions for applicants serving the “national interest” or providing an “economic benefit” to the United States has done little to ease concerns. Sharma-Crawford said even immigration officers lack clear instructions on how these standards should be applied.

The uncertainty is particularly acute for Indian professionals on H-1B visas and their families, many of whom have spent years building lives in the United States while waiting for permanent residency. Sharma-Crawford warned that forcing applicants to pursue consular processing could create enormous logistical and legal challenges, given existing visa backlogs and lengthy wait times at US embassies abroad.

She also argued that the policy reflects a broader pattern rather than a sudden shift. According to Sharma-Crawford, legal immigration was also targeted during President Donald Trump’s first term, despite public attention often focusing on illegal immigration. The difference now, she said, is that the administration is pursuing its agenda with greater preparation and intensity.

Sharma-Crawford, who is the Second Vice President of the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association, expects legal challenges to the policy, describing it as inconsistent with the plain language of existing immigration law. She suggested that one objective may be to move more immigration decisions overseas, where consular officers have broad discretion and their decisions are often shielded from judicial review in US courts.

Beyond green card applicants, Sharma-Crawford said the atmosphere of increased scrutiny is affecting students, visitors, temporary workers and others seeking entry into the United States. Heightened vetting of applicants, including reviews of social media activity, has contributed to a broader sense of uncertainty.

Despite the concerns, Sharma-Crawford urged immigrants not to panic. Pointing to ongoing court challenges against several immigration measures, she argued that the US legal system remains an important safeguard.

Her message to long-term residents facing uncertainty was simple: “Stay the course.” While immigration rules may continue to shift, she said litigation and judicial oversight remain critical guardrails for those navigating an increasingly unpredictable system.

Advertisement