Do Psychological Evaluations Still Matter Under the New USCIS Policy?
This post is based on Episode 36 of Beyond Borders, the podcast for mental health professionals doing immigration evaluation work. Listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube for a deeper walkthrough of each evaluation type, including a fictional case study that traces how the same client might move through a hardship waiver, cancellation of removal, VAWA, a U-visa, and asylum.
When USCIS issued its policy memo in late May, evaluators and immigration attorneys across the country started asking the same question: does our work still matter under these new rules?
The short answer is yes. But how we think about our evaluations, and what we include in them, is worth examining carefully right now.
To help make sense of what changed and what it means for clinicians doing this work, I sat down with Maria Lurye, a former immigration judge who served on the bench in New York from 2017 through 2025. Before that, she spent nearly a decade as assistant chief counsel with ICE, litigating removal cases and writing appellate briefs. She has reviewed hundreds of evaluations across asylum, VAWA, U and T visa, and cancellation of removal cases, and she now consults with attorneys on case strategy and removal defense.
What she shared in our conversation is something every clinician doing immigration evaluation work needs to hear.
What the Memo Actually Changes
While the memo does not change the underlying law, it changes how officers are expected to apply it. Historically, adjustment of status cases were approved when an applicant was otherwise eligible and had no significant negative factors working against them. Longstanding case law, including a case called Matter of Arai, established that adjustment would ordinarily be granted in the absence of adverse factors.
Under the new policy, that presumption is gone. Officers are now directed to weigh the full picture and to treat adjustment of status as something that must be affirmatively justified rather than routinely granted. Being eligible is no longer enough on its own.
During our conversation, Maria identified four factors that officers are now scrutinizing more heavily. The most significant shift is that applying for a green card inside the United States, rather than returning to one's home country to consular process, is now treated as a negative factor in itself. Officers are also looking more closely at whether someone stayed beyond their authorized period, whether they engaged in activities outside the scope of their visa, and whether there is any other immigration violation history.
On the positive side, officers are still required to weigh the full picture, and that includes family and community ties, length of residence, employment and business contributions, and hardship to the applicant or their close relatives if the application is denied. As Maria put it, for every minus we need a plus — and ideally more pluses than minuses.
Where Psychological Evaluations Fit
This is where our work becomes directly relevant. Maria was clear that psychological evaluations can play a meaningful role in these cases, particularly in helping adjudicators understand the human context behind the numbers on a form.
She offered three questions to anchor evaluations on when adjustment of status cases arrive:
What impact would a denial or forced separation have on the applicant and their family?
What might help explain any of the adverse factors in someone's history?
What is the applicant's role within their family and community? This speaks directly to the positive equities officers are required to consider.
One important distinction Maria raised is that unlike provisional waivers, the person being evaluated in these cases could be the applicant themselves or a close family member. This is notable because close relatives in this context can include children.
What Happens to Your Report Once It Leaves Your Hands
This part of our conversation is something every clinician doing this work needs to hear, regardless of experience level.
Adjudicators are often scanning a report with ten to fifteen minutes to spare before a hearing. Page count does not signal credibility and boilerplate language raises red flags immediately. Legal conclusions, statements about whether someone meets a legal standard, belong to the court, not the evaluator. What adjudicators need from clinicians is a clear diagnosis, honest prognostic statements, and clinical reasoning they can actually follow.
Maria also addressed something many clinicians don't consider: if you have only met the client once, explain why. Adjudicators who don't understand forensic practice may interpret a single meeting as a sign the evaluation was done hastily or for convenience. A brief footnote explaining your ethical obligations as a forensic evaluator and why a single session is standard practice in this context goes a long way toward protecting your credibility.
That credibility matters more than most clinicians realize. As Maria said directly, adjudicators keep notes on expert witnesses. Your name follows you from case to case, which means that every evaluation you submit is a reflection of your professional standard.
🔊 Listen to the episode here:
This podcast episode offers rare clarity from someone who has sat on the other side of these decisions. If you conduct immigration evaluations or are actively building this work into your practice, it is essential listening right now.
This episode is made possible by the Expert Training in Immigration Evaluations. If you want a clear, structured, and supported framework for doing this work ethically and competently, the next cohort opens soon.
Explore the next cohort and full course details here.
