Mandatory and Discretionary Bases for Denying Forms I-485 and N-400

An applicant for adjustment of status (form I-485) or naturalization (form N-400) may face denial on two broad legal grounds: mandatory and discretionary. Understanding when a denial is compelled by statute, as opposed to when it reflects a negative exercise of discretion, is essential for strategic planning and case presentation.

Mandatory vs. Discretionary Denials

A mandatory denial is one that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must issue under statute or regulation if certain disqualifying facts are present. For example, for adjustment of status, an applicant may be barred based on a certain type of conviction for, or a commission of, a criminal offense. If the applicant fails to meet a mandatory eligibility requirement, the USCIS must deny rather than weigh factors.

By contrast, a discretionary denial arises when the officer can choose whether to deny the application even if the statutory eligibility requirements are satisfied. In a discretionary adjudication, the officer balances positive and negative factors to see what is communicated by the totality of these circumstances. The USCIS Policy Manual explains that, for discretionary benefits, the applicant must first clear the mandatory eligibility thresholds, and only then may discretion be considered.

In the adjustment of status context, the USCIS confirms that many adjustment cases are discretionary and that even if all eligibility criteria are met, the USCIS must decide whether the applicant “warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.”

Understanding Discretionary Denials

In immigration adjudications, discretion means that the USCIS may decline to approve a benefit even when the applicant meets all statutory and regulatory criteria. The decision hinges on whether the negative factors in the applicant’s history outweigh the positive ones.

Under the current policy regime, the USCIS has signaled stronger and more explicit consideration of negative discretionary factors and expanded grounds for what may be considered disqualifying conduct. For example, the USCIS has indicated that support for “anti-American” or antisemitic ideologies will be treated as overwhelmingly negative factors. Some other examples of negative factors include past immigration violations or unauthorized employment, misrepresentations or inconsistencies, failure to pay taxes or child support, arrests even if not culminating in conviction, or association with ideologies judged “anti-American” or extremist in nature.

Positive factors that may mitigate negatives include long-term U.S. residence, strong family ties, community involvement, consistent tax compliance, rehabilitation after past mistakes, and humanitarian or compelling circumstances such as medical needs or family hardship.

When Ordinary Conduct Becomes “Negative” in Immigration Cases

Many acts that resolve quietly for U.S. citizens or leave no long-term record may provoke scrutiny or negative inference in immigration adjudications. A dismissed or expunged arrest may be harmless for most people, but for an immigrant, it may still be flagged as conduct requiring explanation. Slightly different dates or addresses across forms may be viewed as misrepresentation rather than innocent error. Past lawful use of public benefits may be perceived as a negative factor in discretionary review. Even youthful or minor misconduct that resulted in no conviction may resurface decades later.

These actions often leave no lasting record, but under a discretionary lens, the USCIS may infer a negative pattern of behavior. The remedy is careful presentation of context and evidence of reform and new behavior patterns through affidavits explaining the circumstances, letters of community support, records showing no recurrence, and proof of positive contributions and lawful conduct.

Applicants should proactively review their history before filing to identify such risks and prepare explanatory evidence. In many cases, these potential negatives can be neutralized or contextualized so that they do not outweigh positive equities.

Documentary Requirements: Naturalization (N-400) vs. Adjustment (I-485)

The USCIS imposes different evidence obligations for naturalization and adjustment applicants, particularly regarding arrests and court dispositions. For naturalization, the USCIS Policy Manual  states that applicants must provide certified court dispositions for offenses committed during the statutory period, as well as in the following circumstances regardless of conviction: arrests for criminal acts during the statutory period, arrests on or after 29.Nov.1990, that may be aggravated felonies, arrests for murder, arrests for any offense that would render the applicant removable, arrests outside the statutory period that, when combined with others, would preclude good moral character, and arrests where the applicant is still on probation at the time of adjudication or may have been incarcerated for 180 days during the statutory period.

Because of these limits, most naturalization applicants will not need to submit court documents when filing. However, the USCIS still may issue a request for evidence for additional records, giving the applicant a chance to respond and provide context.

In contrast, adjustment applicants must submit original or certified copies of arrest records or court dispositions for any prior arrest, regardless of outcome. This requirement generally is nonwaivable and stricter than the naturalization standard.

Responding to Discretionary Concerns

When the USCIS indicates discretionary or negative concerns in a request for evidence or during an interview, applicants should emphasize rehabilitation and changed circumstances. Submitting strong positive equities such as community letters, volunteer records, employment documentation, tax returns, and family support can demonstrate reform and responsibility. A personal statement that provides context, without minimizing the incident, can humanize the applicant and show accountability. Applicants also should address the specific concerns raised, explaining each event clearly. Proactive preparation with an attorney can help identify issues early and shape the narrative in a favorable light. If the USCIS issues an unfavorable decision, a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider may be advisable, if it is available.

Conclusion

Denials of immigration benefits, such as I-485 and N-400 applications, rest on two distinct legal bases. Mandatory denials are compelled by statute or regulation, leaving no room for discretion. Discretionary denials hinge on balancing negative and positive factors and, in recent months, the USCIS has broadened the range of conduct that may be viewed negatively. Minor events such as dismissed arrests, inconsistent paperwork, or youthful mistakes that would have little impact for U.S. citizens may carry significant consequences for immigrants. To counter this, applicants should anticipate possible concerns, document positive contributions, and present evidence of reform and good moral character.

Attorneys at the Murthy Law Firm continue to monitor adjudication trends and assist clients in preparing the strongest possible cases for adjustment of status and naturalization.

Copyright © 2025, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved