In today’s adjustment of status landscape, immigrant intent has become an especially hot-button issue. While immigrant intent has always mattered, many practitioners and applicants have noticed a more cautious, enforcement-forward posture in recent adjudications—meaning officers are quicker to probe whether an applicant’s actions match the story of a “temporary visit that later changed.” The practical takeaway is simple: the government is more sensitive than ever to indicators that someone entered the U.S. with a pre-formed plan to remain, and that sensitivity can show up in longer interviews, tougher Requests for Evidence (RFEs), and more detailed questioning about timelines.
Immigrant intent is the concept that a person planned—at the time of entry or at the time they applied for a visa—to stay permanently in the United States. Attorneys such as our friends at Bolour / Carl Immigration Group, APC know that this matters because many nonimmigrant visas require the applicant to have temporary intent and to maintain a residence abroad they do not intend to abandon. Visitors (B-1/B-2), students (F-1), and many exchange visitors (J-1) fall into this category. If someone enters using one of these visas while actually intending to pursue a green card, the government may view that as fraud or willful misrepresentation, which can trigger severe immigration consequences, including a lifetime inadmissibility bar absent a waiver.
What “heightened sensitivity” looks like in practice is a closer look at early post-entry conduct. Officers often infer intent from behavior, and recent scrutiny tends to focus on how quickly the applicant took steps toward permanent residence after arrival. Filing an I-485 soon after entry, marrying a U.S. citizen or permanent resident shortly after arriving, immediately stopping school or violating status, applying for work authorization right away, or taking other actions inconsistent with a temporary stay can raise red flags. None of these facts automatically defeats a case—adjustment eligibility is a legal determination—but they often invite deeper examination and a demand for a clearer, better-documented narrative.
This is why timing and consistency have become critical. When the government suspects a person entered with immigrant intent, it may question what the applicant told the consular officer or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer at entry, whether they disclosed a relationship, whether they carried documents suggesting an intention to remain (such as résumés, job offer materials, wedding plans, or extensive personal records), and whether they maintained genuine ties abroad at the time of entry. Even routine facts—closing an overseas lease, shipping household goods, quitting a job, or selling property—can be interpreted as inconsistent with a claimed temporary purpose if they occurred before or immediately after entry.
At the same time, not all visa categories are treated equally because the law recognizes “dual intent” for certain nonimmigrant classifications. H-1B and L-1 are classic dual-intent categories, meaning a person can legitimately enter to work temporarily while also planning to pursue permanent residence. For these applicants, seeking a green card is generally not viewed as contradicting their status, and immigrant intent concerns are less likely to drive a misrepresentation analysis. The risk is highest for applicants who entered on a visa that requires temporary intent and then quickly pursue adjustment without a well-supported explanation of what changed.
For those applicants, an immigration lawyer knows that the key is showing that the intent at entry matched the visa, and that the decision to adjust arose later due to new circumstances—such as a relationship progressing unexpectedly, a job opportunity that developed after arrival, or a change in family needs. Because adjudications have felt more exacting recently, strong evidence matters more: proof of prior plans to depart, continuing ties abroad at entry, a coherent and credible timeline, and supporting documents that align with the applicant’s statements. Consistency across forms, prior visa applications, entry records, and interview testimony is often the difference between a smooth approval and a finding that the story doesn’t add up.
Bottom line: immigrant intent is not a minor technicality. With the government appearing more alert to perceived “entry-to-adjust” strategies, applicants should treat intent as a central issue, build the narrative carefully, and avoid casual assumptions that marriage or eligibility alone will override a questionable entry timeline. In a sensitive adjudication environment, clarity, documentation, and proactive legal strategy can define the outcome.