Trump administration to force foreigners in the U.S. to apply for a green card abroad
Key Takeaways
- It has been reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a rule that would generally require foreign nationals physically in the United States to apply for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates abroad rather than through in‑country "adjustment of status."
- The change would shift many family‑ and employment‑based green card applicants from USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) adjustment interviews to consular processing overseas, raising risks for people who would have to leave the U.S.
- Experts expect travel requirements, unlawful‑presence bars, waiver complexities, longer delays, and legal challenges to follow; the rule would first go through a public‑comment period and could be litigated.
- For individuals, the rule could mean separation from jobs and families, potential ineligibility upon return, and higher costs and uncertainty during a protracted visa process.
What the proposal would do
It has been reported that DHS’s proposed regulation seeks to limit who may use adjustment of status — the domestic process through which many noncitizens already in the United States become lawful permanent residents (green card holders) — and instead send most cases to U.S. consulates overseas for “consular processing.” Consular processing requires applicants to leave the U.S., attend an immigrant visa interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate, and receive a visa there before returning as a permanent resident. USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) currently adjudicates many family‑ and employment‑based adjustments without requiring departure; the proposed rule would shrink that pathway.
Who would be affected and the legal risks
The NPR report indicates the shift would touch broad groups, notably family‑ and employment‑based applicants who otherwise rely on AOS (adjustment of status). Leaving the United States to complete a consular interview can trigger unlawful‑presence bars (three‑ or ten‑year bans) for people who accrued unlawful presence, and waivers for those bars are limited and often difficult to obtain. The change could also create logistical and financial burdens: applicants may need to travel to sometimes distant consular posts, pay additional fees, and face unpredictable backlogs and security checks. It has been reported that DHS may include some exemptions, but those details and the rule’s scope would be clarified in the formal notice.
What this means now and next steps
Practically, nothing is final: a proposed rule typically opens a notice‑and‑comment period, and such major changes often prompt lawsuits from immigrant advocates and states. For people currently in the immigration pipeline, the immediate takeaway is to consult an immigration lawyer before making travel or filing decisions. If implemented, the rule could lengthen processing times and increase the chance that someone must depart the U.S. and risk denial or bars to return. For advocates and applicants, submitting public comments during the rulemaking window and preparing for likely litigation will be key actions in the coming months.
Source: Original Article