One of the greatest challenges facing immigration practitioners today is not simply understanding the law; it is determining what the law actually is on any given day.
Immigration law has always evolved through legislation, regulations, agency guidance, executive action, and court decisions. What has changed in recent years, and in particular the last year, however, is the extraordinary speed at which those developments now occur. Major policy announcements are issued, challenged in court, clarified by the issuing agency, modified through follow-up guidance, or effectively narrowed in application, all within hours, days or weeks.
The result is what I would describe as “policy whiplash.” It’s exhausting.
Early in my career, I attended a continuing legal education program presented by the New York City Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). One of the panelists made a statement that has stayed with me ever since. She said that if you practiced immigration law and were not an AILA member, you were flirting with malpractice. She went even further, saying that if you were an AILA member but did not begin every workday by reviewing the members-only updates on AILA’s website, you were flirting with malpractice again.
Whether one agrees with that characterization or not, the point was well taken. Immigration law changes constantly, and competent representation requires practitioners to stay current. That was true almost thirty years ago. Today, it is even more true. In the current immigration environment, developments occur so rapidly that many practitioners begin each morning wondering what changed overnight.
A recent example illustrates the point. In May 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 concerning adjustment of status (i.e., green card) applications. The memorandum immediately generated significant concern among immigration practitioners because it appeared to signal that many applicants who had traditionally adjusted their status in the United States might instead be required to complete consular processing abroad. Attorneys across the country began analyzing the policy, advising clients, and reconsidering filing strategies.
Then came the clarifications. Some called it refinement; others called it backpedaling. Whatever label one chooses, practitioners once again found themselves reassessing advice they had given only days earlier.
Within a relatively short period, USCIS issued additional guidance explaining how adjudicators would exercise discretion and emphasizing that the memorandum should not be interpreted as establishing a blanket requirement for consular processing. Legal commentators, including practitioners and national organizations, spent weeks analyzing the practical effect of the revisions. While the policy itself remained important, the initial reaction and the subsequent clarification demonstrated just how quickly immigration guidance can evolve.
This is hardly an isolated example. In my little corner of the legal profession, it has become the norm rather than the exception.
Today, immigration practitioners routinely find themselves tracking new executive actions, agency memoranda, policy alerts, litigation, injunctions, appellate decisions, and frequently asked questions, sometimes all addressing the same issue within a matter of days. A strategy that appears appropriate on Monday may require reconsideration by Wednesday, Thursday or Friday.
This constant state of change affects everyone involved in the immigration system. (Did I mention that this is exhausting?)
Individuals and families are often forced to make life-changing decisions based upon guidance that may soon be revised. Employers attempting to maintain compliance with increasingly complex immigration requirements must adapt quickly to changing government interpretations. Attorneys have an ethical obligation to provide accurate advice while recognizing that the governing guidance itself may continue to evolve after that advice is given. Even government adjudicators and immigration judges are frequently tasked with applying policies that are new, unsettled, or the subject of ongoing litigation.
The result is not merely inconvenience. It creates uncertainty at every level of the immigration process. (Exhausting.)
For that reason, individuals should be cautious about relying on articles, social media posts, or even legal advice that is several weeks or months old. In today’s immigration environment, information that was entirely accurate when published may no longer reflect current agency policy or judicial interpretation.
Immigration law has always been dynamic. In the second Trump administration, to say it’s different would be a gross understatement. The pace of change has accelerated to the point that practitioners must monitor developments daily, and often several times a day. I often think back to that CLE program I attended years ago. At the time, I thought the speaker’s advice sounded a bit dramatic. Today, I’m not so sure. Staying informed is no longer simply a best practice; it has become an indispensable part of competent representation.
In immigration law today, certainty is often temporary. The challenge is not simply keeping up with the law; it is keeping up with the speed at which it changes.