Challenging I-485 Denials
through Federal Litigation

The I-485 Adjustment of Status application is one of the most important steps for individuals seeking permanent residence from within the United States. When the application is denied, it can raise serious questions about what went wrong and what options remain. A clear review of the decision can help you understand why the denial happened and how you can move forward.

At Colombo & Hurd, our Federal Immigration Litigation Practice, led by former Department of Justice senior official Sarah Wilson, provides guidance for petitioners who want to determine whether federal court review is a strategic way to challenge an I-485 denial.

Role of Form I-485 in the U.S. Immigration Process 

Form I-485 allows eligible individuals already in the U.S. to adjust to lawful permanent resident status when a visa is immediately available in their category under the Visa Bulletin.  

It is the final step in the green card process and is used across many immigrant categories. These include employment-based classifications such as EB-1A, EB-1B, EB-1C, EB-2 NIW, and EB-3 skilled or professional workers, as well as family-based cases with an approved I-130. Many humanitarian and special immigrant paths, such as asylum, Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJ), and certain religious workers also rely on the I-485 to obtain permanent residence. 

When reviewing an I-485 application, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) evaluates eligibility, admissibility, and the documentation that supports the underlying petition. Unlike petition filings such as I-130 or I-140, an I-485 decision also considers the petitioner’s personal history, current circumstances, and factors related to admissibility. Approval provides lawful permanent resident status and offers long-term stability for petitioners and their families. 

Why USCIS May Deny an I-485 and How Today’s Trends Affect These Decisions 

USCIS may deny an I-485 for a wide range of reasons, often tied to eligibility, admissibility, or gaps in the evidence. Sometimes, the record needs clearer explanation or documentation, for example, questions about the nature of a family relationship, an employment offer, or whether the evidence meets the standards for a particular humanitarian or special immigrant category. In other situations, USCIS may raise concerns about immigration history, background information, medical exam findings, or inconsistencies that surfaced during the interview. 

Because I-485 cases often remain pending for many months, the record can evolve over time. Changes in personal circumstances, job duties, or family situations may require updated evidence; priority-date movement or issues with the underlying petition can also affect the final decision. In the same way, multi-year filings, supplemental submissions, and interview discussions may introduce questions that the initial evidence did not fully answer. 

These factors do not necessarily mean a person is ineligible for adjustment of status.  More often, they reflect how complex timelines, layered documentation, and evolving circumstances shape the way USCIS evaluates a case. A careful, structured review of the denial and the supporting record helps clarify the specific issues that led to the outcome and the options available for moving forward. 

Challenging I-485 Denials through Federal Litigation  

After an I-485 denial, some individuals pursue administrative options within USCIS, while others consider an independent review by a federal court. The appropriate approach depends on the unique circumstances of each case. Federal litigation may be considered when: 

• The decision appears legally incorrect or inconsistent with the evidence 
• USCIS misapplied statutes, regulations, or case law 
• Material evidence was overlooked or improperly interpreted 
• The reasoning in the denial is unclear or lacks support 
• The application has been pending for an unreasonably long period 

Two primary pathways exist for federal review: Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges and mandamus actions. 

APA review allows a federal judge to examine whether USCIS applied the correct legal standards, evaluated the evidence properly, and provided reasoning that follows the law. Petitioners consider this approach when they have questions about how the agency interpreted eligibility requirements, assessed the evidence, or evaluated the full history of the case. 

Mandamus actions serve a different purpose. Individuals use this option when they face significant delays or when their case has not moved forward within a reasonable period. Mandamus asks the court to require USCIS to take action on unresolved matters so that petitioners can continue their immigration process without prolonged uncertainty.