Marrying a U.S. citizen used to be the most reliable path from an F-1 student visa to a Green Card. Under USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, issued May 21, 2026, that path is still available — but it is no longer routine. If you are on an F-1 visa and married to a U.S. citizen, or you are about to file Form I-485 for adjustment of status, the new F-1 visa Green Card through marriage standard changes how you should prepare your case immediately.
The press release accompanying PM-602-0199 implied that nonimmigrants must now leave the country and consular process abroad. That framing is misleading. The real change is quieter and far more dangerous for the unprepared: USCIS now treats adjustment of status as extraordinary discretionary relief, and F-1 is one of the visa categories the memo specifically flags as high-risk. A denial on discretion paired with the 2018 NTA memo can place a denied applicant directly into removal proceedings.
This post walks through what the new memo actually says, why F-1 students face elevated exposure, who still has stronger protections, and the concrete steps to take before filing an I-485 in 2026.
What USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 Actually Says
PM-602-0199 does not change the underlying immigration statute. INA § 245 still governs adjustment of status. Eligibility requirements remain unchanged. What the memo changes is the discretionary standard USCIS officers now apply when reviewing every I-485.
The memo formally reclassifies adjustment of status as an “extraordinary form of relief” rather than a routine administrative process. It directs USCIS officers to apply the long-standing standard in Matter of Blas, 15 I&N Dec. 626 (BIA 1974), under which applicants must demonstrate “unusual or outstanding equities” to receive favorable discretion. The memo’s discretionary authority is rooted in INA § 245(a) and § 103(a)(3), and it builds on Supreme Court precedent in *Patel v. Garland*, 596 U.S. 328 (2022), which confirmed that adjustment of status is a matter of grace, not entitlement.
For the underlying adjudication framework, see the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7, Part A, which the memo directly references.
The Operative New Standard
The memo states plainly that “the absence of adverse factors, by itself, does not demonstrate such unusual or outstanding equities.” That single sentence carries the entire policy shift. Officers can now deny an I-485 even when the applicant meets every statutory eligibility requirement, if the case file does not affirmatively demonstrate the equities that justify a discretionary grant.
Adverse factors the memo specifically calls out include failure to depart when a nonimmigrant period expired, unauthorized employment, status violations after admission, fraud or false testimony in any government interaction, and conduct inconsistent with the original purpose of the visa. For F-1 holders, that last category is the one that hurts.
Why F-1 Sits in the High-Risk Category
F-1 is a single-intent visa. Unlike H-1B or L-1, which are explicitly recognized as “dual intent” categories, the F-1 student visa requires the applicant to maintain nonimmigrant intent — i.e., the intention to return home after completing studies. Every F-1 was granted on the representation that the student would depart. When that student later files for adjustment of status, the file shows USCIS that the original intent representation no longer holds.
PM-602-0199 expressly tells officers to weigh “intent to reside permanently when consular processing was available” as a discretionary negative. Because F-1 holders have always been able to depart and apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad, the availability of consular processing is, by definition, a fact in every F-1 adjustment file. The memo turns that fact into an adverse equity the applicant must overcome.
Who Is Most at Risk Under the New USCIS Adjustment of Status Policy
The memo affects every pending I-485, but several applicant profiles face dramatically elevated denial exposure. F-1 students adjusting through marriage sit in the second-highest tier.
F-1 Students With Any Period of Out-of-Status
If your SEVIS record was terminated, if you dropped below a full course load without authorization, if you transferred between schools incorrectly, or if you remained in the United States after program completion without OPT or another authorized basis, those gaps now count against you under the discretionary standard. The memo treats “status violations after admission” as a specifically identified adverse factor.
F-1 Students With Unauthorized Employment
Working off-campus without authorization, working beyond the hour limits on on-campus employment, working before OPT authorization begins, or working in a position not related to the field of study during OPT all create adverse equities under PM-602-0199. Even relatively minor unauthorized employment now requires affirmative offset evidence in the I-485 file.
B-1 / B-2 Visitor Visa Adjusters
Applicants who entered as visitors and later filed for marriage-based adjustment are in a similar position to F-1 holders. The “90-day rule” — USCIS’s prior framework for analyzing intent on visitor-to-AOS conversions — now folds into a broader discretionary analysis under PM-602-0199.
Parolees Whose Parole Purpose Has Been Served
Humanitarian parolees, including those admitted under Uniting for Ukraine, the CHNV parole programs, or older humanitarian parole authorizations, face heightened scrutiny when filing for adjustment after the parole purpose is complete.
Anyone With Overstay Before Filing
Any period of unlawful presence before the I-485 was filed — including periods that did not trigger the 3- or 10-year bars — now counts as an affirmative adverse factor that must be offset by equity evidence in the file.
Who Still Has Stronger Statutory Protections
Not every adjustment case is equally exposed under the new memo. Several categories retain statutory protections that PM-602-0199 expressly preserves.
Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens
Spouses, parents, and unmarried children under 21 of U.S. citizens are statutorily carved out from many of the INA § 245(c) bars, including unauthorized employment and status violations. Marriage-based applicants retain the strongest statutory footing. However, discretion still applies — and for F-1 spouses of U.S. citizens, the discretionary standard is now meaningfully harder than it was before May 21, 2026.
Statutorily Protected Categories
The memo, at footnote 24, preserves non-discretionary approval pathways for asylees and refugees under INA § 209, NACARA applicants, HRIFA applicants, Cuban Adjustment Act beneficiaries, Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness applicants, and certain Afghan special immigrants under NDAA § 7611. If your eligibility is rooted in one of these statutes, the new discretionary standard does not apply to you.
VAWA Self-Petitioners
VAWA self-petitioners are expressly carved out under INA § 245(c) (footnote 12) and retain their statutorily protected adjustment pathway. The new memo does not change that protection.
H-1B and L-1 Dual-Intent Holders
The memo confirms that “applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with simultaneously maintaining nonimmigrant status in a category with dual intent.” H-1B and L-1 status alone, however, is not enough — the memo also states that “maintaining lawful status in a dual intent nonimmigrant category is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.” Equity-building still matters.
The Real Danger: Denial Plus the NTA Memo
For F-1 students marrying through adjustment, the part most people miss is what happens after a denial. Under the 2018 USCIS NTA policy, USCIS routinely issues a Notice to Appear (NTA) when an applicant without lawful status receives a denial. An NTA puts the applicant directly into removal proceedings before an immigration judge — also known as deportation court.
What that means in practice: an F-1 student who lets status lapse before filing the I-485, then receives a discretionary denial, can find themselves defending the same green card case in removal proceedings — without the affirmative procedural posture they had when they filed.
The strategic implication is clear. More than ever, working with an experienced immigration attorney who handles family-based visas, humanitarian visas, and removal defense cases is essential to navigate this challenging and ever-changing immigration process.
Why Case Strategy Matters More Than Ever
Filing an I-485 in the post-PM-602-0199 environment is not a paperwork exercise. The case theory must lead with affirmative equities, anticipate the discretionary adverse factors USCIS will weigh, and offset each with documented evidence. A well-prepared marriage-based F-1 adjustment file in 2026 looks more like a hardship waiver package than a traditional adjustment package — even though the underlying statute is unchanged.
How to Protect Your F-1 Marriage-Based Green Card Case
If you are an F-1 student married to a U.S. citizen, or you are considering filing in the near term, several concrete steps reduce your exposure under the new memo.
Map Every Adverse Factor Before You File
Pull your full SEVIS record, every Form I-20, all OPT and CPT authorizations, every visa stamp, every entry record, and every employer relationship since you arrived. Identify any gap, any unauthorized employment period, and any inconsistency. The case theory has to address each of these — silence is not a strategy under the new memo.
Build the Equity File
Long-term residence in the United States, established community ties, contributions through study and work, hardship to your U.S. citizen spouse if forced to consular process abroad, academic accomplishments, and any humanitarian factors all belong in the I-485 file as affirmative equities. The memo expressly tells officers to weigh equities — your job is to give them something to weigh.
Consider the Timing Carefully
Filing too soon after marriage, before equity evidence accumulates, may invite the same “intent” analysis the memo flags. Filing too late, after status has lapsed, layers an additional adverse factor on top of the F-1 single-intent baseline. The optimal filing window varies by case.
Do Not File Without a Case Review
The cost of a discretionary denial in 2026 is not just losing the green card application fee. It is the realistic possibility of being placed in removal proceedings. Schedule a case consultation with immigration attorneys before any I-485 leaves your hands.
Practical Next Steps for F-1 Students and Their U.S.Citizen Spouses
If any of the following describes your situation, immediate review is warranted before filing:
- F-1 with any period of out-of-status — even a short gap
- F-1 with unauthorized employment, including OPT mismatches
- F-1 who married within months of arrival or status change
- F-1 with multiple changes of school or program
- F-1 whose SEVIS record was terminated and later reinstated
- F-1 whose I-485 was previously denied or RFE’d
- F-1 spouse with any prior immigration violation or criminal history
Each of these fact patterns is fixable, but each requires affirmative case strategy under PM-602-0199. The earlier the strategy is built, the stronger the file.
How Francis Law Center Can Help
At Francis Law Center, we represent F-1 students and their U.S. citizen spouses through every stage of the marriage-based Green Card process — from pre-filing strategy to interview preparation to RFE response to denial mitigation. Our team handles family-based immigration, humanitarian visas, and removal defense, which means we can build the discretionary case theory the new USCIS memo requires, and we can defend the case if it ends up before an immigration judge.
📞 Call 877-430-4201 for a case consultation with immigration attorneys.
🌐 www.francislawcenter.com/contact/
Serving all 50 states | Hablamos Espanol
If you prefer to speak with our Spanish-speaking team, let us know when you call.
Read more about our family-based immigration practice, our humanitarian visa work, and our removal defense practice. Every case is different — let us help you build the right strategy before you file.
_____________________________________________________________
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice on your specific case, contact Francis Law Center for a consultation.
