"Leave Jobs, Homes and Relationships": US Ends 60-Year Green Card Policy — Over 1 Million Immigrants Now Must Return to Home Countries to Apply

23 May 2026 | Washington D.C. — Updated 20:30 GMT

She has lived in Chicago for eleven years. She pays taxes. She volunteers at her daughter's school. Her green card application has been pending for eighteen months. Now, she must leave.

He fled gang violence in El Salvador. He has no family left there. The last time he saw his home, he was running for his life. Now, he must return — to wait, to hope, to be processed like a number on a form.

Their crime? Following the rules. Their punishment? Exile.

WASHINGTON D.C. – For more than sixty years, foreigners in the United States seeking permanent residency could adjust their status without leaving the country. That era ended on Friday.

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced in a policy memo that green card applicants must now return to their home countries to apply — upending a process that had been unchanged for over half a century. The move, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said would "allow our immigration system to function as the law intended," immediately drew fierce condemnation from aid groups, immigration attorneys, and policy analysts.

"An alien who is in the US temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply," DHS said in a statement. The agency has oversight of USCIS.

How the Green Card Process Worked — And What Just Changed

People apply for green cards in two separate ways: by applying at a US consulate abroad (consular processing), or by applying while already in the US, which is called an "adjustment of status." The latter option has been available since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 — a bedrock of modern US immigration policy.

Under the new USCIS policy, many green card applicants already in the US will now be required to leave while their cases are processed. The change will particularly affect mixed-status families nationwide — forcing green card applicants to leave jobs, homes, and relationships for an unknown amount of time, with no guarantee of return.

The agency is already struggling with a massive backlog of visa and green card cases. According to an analyst with the Cato Institute, more than 1 million immigrants in the US are currently waiting on their green cards. It remains unclear how pending cases will be handled under the new rule.

'Forcing Survivors Back to Danger': Advocates Condemn Move

HIAS, an aid group that provides services to refugees and other immigrant populations, said USCIS was effectively forcing survivors of trafficking and abused and neglected children to return to the dangerous countries they fled — just to process their applications for permanent residency.

"This is not immigration enforcement. This is cruelty dressed up as policy," said a HIAS spokesperson. "We are telling victims of horrific abuse: go back to your abuser, wait in line, and maybe — just maybe — we'll let you return."

The policy shift marks the latest in a series of steps taken by the Trump administration over the last year to tighten immigration to the United States. Last year, the administration moved to shorten the duration of visas for students, cultural exchange visitors, and members of the media. In January, the State Department announced that it had revoked more than 100,000 visas during the second Trump administration. The administration has also targeted other immigrants with legal status, including refugees and other protected immigrants.

The Companion Policy: 'Affirm You Do Not Fear Return'

Friday's green card announcement was not the only immigration policy shift this week. Less than a month earlier, on 28 April, the State Department issued a separate directive that the Guardian obtained — one that creates an even more immediate barrier for would-be visitors.

Under the new State Department guidance, applicants seeking a temporary visa to the United States must now tell a consular officer that they have not experienced harm and do not fear returning to their home country. If they answer "yes" or decline to respond to either question, the chance they will be denied increases dramatically.

The two new questions are:

• "Have you experienced harm or mistreatment in your country of nationality or last habitual residence?"
• "Do you fear harm or mistreatment in returning to your country of nationality?"

The directive claims the new process is designed to cut down on what the department alleges are people misrepresenting themselves during the visa process.

"The high number of aliens claiming asylum in the United States indicates that many aliens misrepresent this intention to consular officers in the visa application process and at US ports of entry," the directive reads, "and that information collected from visa applicants under current guidance is inadequate to identify those applicants who fear harm or mistreatment in returning to their home country."

The Perjury Trap: A Permanent Bar for Honest Applicants

There is also a risk of perjury — a trap that advocates say is by design. An applicant who correctly fears return but answers "no" to obtain a visa has made a material misrepresentation to a federal officer, which is a federal crime that carries a permanent bar from the United States.

"You are asking a survivor of domestic violence to either lie under oath or admit that she fears returning to her abuser — and then you deny her visa either way," said one immigration attorney who requested anonymity. "That's not screening. That's a catch-22 designed to keep people out."

Under both US law and the 1951 Refugee Convention, the right to seek asylum is not conditional on how someone enters the country or what they told a visa officer. But the new policy creates a screening mechanism that would filter out victims of persecution — including domestic abuse survivors, journalists who have received death threats, and members of persecuted religious minorities — before they ever reach US soil, regardless of whether their stated purpose of travel is legitimate.

The Legal Framework: Executive Order and National Security

The directive cites executive order 14161, signed by Trump on his first day in office in January 2025. The order directed federal agencies to enhance immigration screening and vetting to prevent entry of individuals deemed potential security threats.

A review mandated by the order led to a White House proclamation in June 2025 suspending entry entirely for nationals of 12 countries and imposing partial restrictions on seven more.

The State Department issued a separate directive in March 2025 ordering consular offices to expand screening of student visa applicants — including social media vetting — to bar those they deem to be engaging in "terrorist activity," which many took to mean supporting Palestine.

The cable also cross-references classified operational guidance held on internal State Department systems, meaning the full scope of the new policy remains unknown outside the department.

What Comes Next: Lawsuits and Implementation Chaos

Immigration attorneys and civil rights groups are already preparing legal challenges. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has signaled it may seek an injunction, arguing that the policy violates both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Refugee Convention.

"This administration is systematically dismantling the asylum system — not through legislation, but through memos and cable traffic," said a senior ACLU attorney. "These policies will be challenged. They will be litigated. And we believe they will be struck down."

Meanwhile, USCIS is already struggling with a crippling backlog. Forcing hundreds of thousands of applicants to leave the country and reapply from abroad is expected to overwhelm US consulates, which lack the staffing to process the surge.

When reached for comment, the State Department said that consular officers "are the first line of defense for US national security."

"Under President Trump, the Department of State is using all available tools and resources to determine whether each visa applicant qualifies under US law," a department spokesperson said.

Stay updated with the latest world headlines on our World Headlines Page.