Two Bans, No Exit: Why Nationals From Dozens of Countries Are Caught in a Trap the AOS Memo Made Worse.

The adjustment of status memo was bad enough on its own. For nationals from countries subject to the administration's two overlapping visa restriction policies, it is something worse: a double trap with no exit.

To understand why, you need to understand that there are actually two separate policies at work, and they operate differently.

Two policies. Two different populations. One combined effect.

The first is Presidential Proclamation 10998, which took effect January 1, 2026. This is a 39-country travel ban affecting entry into the United States. For nationals of 19 countries, including Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa entry is fully suspended. For nationals of an additional 20 countries, including Cuba, Nigeria, Venezuela, Senegal, and others — immigrant visa entry and nonimmigrant entry on B (visitor), F (student), M (vocational), and J (exchange visitor) visas is suspended, with reduced validity on all other nonimmigrant categories. Critically, this ban applies to individuals outside the United States who did not hold a valid visa as of the effective date.

The second is the State Department's 75-country immigrant visa freeze, which took effect January 21, 2026. This policy indefinitely paused the issuance of immigrant visas — green card applications processed at consulates abroad — for nationals of 75 countries identified as presenting a heightened risk of becoming a public charge. Unlike the travel ban, this policy affects only immigrant visas. Nonimmigrant visas, including H-1B, L-1, F-1, O-1, and tourist visas, are not directly affected by the 75-country freeze.

Now comes PM-602-0199, telling officers to treat adjustment of status as something that requires "extraordinary circumstances" to justify, and to treat the applicant's choice not to pursue consular processing as an adverse factor. But for individuals already in the United States who are nationals of these countries, consular processing is not a choice they declined. It is an option that ranges from practically impossible to completely unavailable.

The memo's own framework should exempt them, but it doesn't say so explicitly.

The policy memorandum is built around the premise that consular processing is the "normal" path and adjustment is the exception. Its entire rationale depends on the applicant having the ability to go abroad and process through a U.S. consulate. But the memo does not say, in plain language, that it does not apply when consular processing is unavailable. It does not carve out nationals subject to travel bans. It does not carve out asylum holders who cannot return to their home countries. It is silent.

That silence is not neutral. It is a trap.

By implication, and I would argue by the memo's own logic, it should not apply to people who have no viable consular option. You cannot penalize someone for "avoiding" consular processing when consular processing is literally unavailable to them. That is the argument that needs to be made at every interview, in every RFE response, and in every piece of litigation challenging this memo.

For many of these nationals, adjustment is the only pathway to a green card. Period.

Consider the practical reality for a national of one of the 19 fully-banned countries — say, an Iranian national or a Haitian national — who has been lawfully present in the United States for years, has an approved EB-2 or EB-3 petition, and is now in the adjustment of status queue. Going to a consulate is not an option. Returning home to wait is not an option. They are here. They followed the law. They qualify. And now a USCIS policy memo is being used to require them to justify their use of the only available pathway.

For nationals from the 75-country immigrant visa freeze, the picture is similar but more targeted: the freeze specifically blocks the consular green card track, meaning for this population, adjustment of status is not just a preference, it is the only currently viable route to permanent residence in the U.S. at all. Telling these applicants they must affirmatively justify why they are not pursuing consular processing is asking them to explain why they cannot do the impossible.

A third layer of harm applies to nationals of travel-ban countries currently inside the United States: USCIS has separately paused final adjudication of immigration benefit requests for nationals of travel-ban countries, meaning even pending adjustment applications may be frozen. Caught in all three policies simultaneously, these applicants face potential indefinite limbo through no fault of their own.

The equal protection implications are serious.

Targeting the benefits available to lawful immigrants based on their national origin — particularly when combined with a policy that presumes consular processing is available regardless of whether it actually is — raises significant constitutional questions. The Fifth Amendment's equal protection principles apply to immigration benefits. Denying access to a Congressionally-authorized pathway to permanent residence to individuals from specific countries, while others with identical eligibility profiles adjust freely, is not neutral immigration enforcement.

This is one of the grounds on which federal litigation challenging both the travel bans and the AOS memo is being developed. The argument is straightforward: you cannot on one hand make consular processing unavailable to nationals of certain countries, and on the other hand penalize those same nationals in their adjustment applications for not pursuing consular processing.

First, the argument that the memo does not apply — or applies with significantly less force — must be made affirmatively at any interview or in any RFE response. Document the applicable travel ban or visa freeze. Document the unavailability of consular processing. Make the officer confront the contradiction in the memo's own framework.

Second, document hardship extensively. Many of these applicants have been in the United States for years, sometimes decades. They have U.S. citizen children. They own homes and businesses. They pay taxes. They have built lives here because, in many cases, there was no viable path home. That history is a strong positive equity under any discretionary framework.

Third, understand that denial carries consequences that are catastrophically disproportionate for this population. A denied I-485 that triggers a Notice to Appear, for a national from a fully-banned country, is not "just" a setback that leads to consular processing. It may mean removal proceedings, prolonged detention, and no clear path to reunification with U.S. citizen family members — because the consular path that USCIS points to is legally unavailable to them.

The memo is still in effect. For this population, the stakes are highest and the legal arguments are strongest. Both of those things are true at the same time.

Michelle Canero is Managing Partner of Canero Fadul Reis PLLC. The firm represents employment-based and self-petition clients and is actively developing federal APA litigation challenging PM-602-0199. For consultations: forms.canerofadul.com/242534922407960