Yes, But the Mechanics Matter
Adjustment of status is the process of becoming a lawful permanent resident from inside the United States, without having to leave for consular processing abroad. Being in removal proceedings doesn’t automatically take that option off the table. What it changes is who has the authority to decide the application, and how you get there.
Under federal regulation, when someone is already in removal proceedings — other than as an “arriving alien,” which follows a narrower, separate rule — the immigration judge handling the case has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate any adjustment of status application that person files. In plain terms: for most respondents, once you’re in proceedings, it’s generally the judge, not USCIS, who decides your adjustment application, and it’s usually decided as part of your removal case rather than through a separate USCIS filing.
What Still Has to Be True
Being in front of a judge instead of a USCIS officer doesn’t change the underlying legal requirements for adjustment of status. You still generally need an approved immigrant petition (or one that’s approvable and can be adjudicated alongside your adjustment application), and — critically — a visa currently available in your category, based on the Department of State’s monthly Visa Bulletin. For family- and employment-based categories with backlogs, that availability requirement can be the real bottleneck, independent of anything happening in your removal case.
You also still need to meet whatever other eligibility bars apply to adjustment generally — admissibility, or a waiver of any inadmissibility ground that applies, among others depending on your situation. None of that changes because your case is in immigration court rather than with USCIS.
Why Procedural Posture Matters So Much Here
How you ended up in removal proceedings, and what’s currently charged against you, matters more in this context than it might seem. Someone in proceedings because of an expired status with a straightforward path to an approvable family petition is in a very different position than someone with a serious removability charge or criminal history that could independently bar relief or trigger additional scrutiny. The same is true of “arriving aliens” — a narrower category (broadly, certain people encountered at ports of entry or applying for admission) — where jurisdiction to adjust generally stays with USCIS rather than shifting to the immigration judge, with limited exceptions.
Termination or dismissal of a removal case is sometimes discussed as a strategy for pursuing an immigration benefit outside of court instead. That’s a separate, related question — see Can an Immigration Case Be Dismissed or Terminated? — but it’s important to understand that termination isn’t always the only route to a green card in proceedings. In appropriate cases, the adjustment application can be filed and decided by the immigration judge directly, without first resolving whether the case gets terminated.
What DHS’s Position Can Mean in Practice
Even where the immigration judge has jurisdiction to grant adjustment, DHS — through the ICE attorney assigned to the case — is still a party with its own position, and it can oppose the underlying petition, argue that a discretionary factor weighs against approval, or contest specific elements of eligibility. That opposition doesn’t remove the judge’s authority to decide the application, but it does mean the case may need to be more thoroughly documented and argued than an equivalent application filed directly with USCIS outside of court, where there’s no opposing party in the room. How much DHS opposition matters in a given case, and how to respond to it, is case-specific.
It’s also worth understanding that a pending adjustment application doesn’t automatically pause other aspects of a removal case. Deadlines the judge has set for other filings, or a scheduled individual hearing, generally continue on their own track unless the judge specifically adjusts them — see What Happens at an Individual Immigration Court Hearing? for what that hearing looks like when adjustment is the relief being sought.
Common Problems
A common and costly misunderstanding is assuming that any pending or hoped-for petition automatically means adjustment is available. If a petition hasn’t been filed, isn’t approvable on its own merits, or the underlying category isn’t currently current on the Visa Bulletin, adjustment isn’t available yet regardless of what’s happening in the removal case — timing, not just eligibility, is often the real constraint.
Another problem is delay: waiting to explore whether adjustment might be an option until close to an individual hearing, rather than early enough to actually file the petition, gather evidence, and let the immigration judge properly consider it as part of the case.
Risks and Exceptions
The “arriving alien” exception is a genuine trap for the unprepared — it’s a narrower category than it sounds, and it changes which agency has jurisdiction over the adjustment application in a way that materially affects strategy. If you’re unsure whether that category applies to you, that’s worth confirming specifically rather than assuming a general answer applies.
Visa availability is also worth tracking closely and specifically. A category that isn’t current now may become current, or may retrogress further, and either can change what’s realistically available in your case on a month-to-month basis — this is not something to check once and assume stays static.
What Happens Next
If you’re in removal proceedings and think you may have a path to a green card through an underlying petition, the useful next step is a specific review: is there an approvable petition, is a visa currently available in your category, and does your particular procedural posture (including any charges against you) support pursuing adjustment in front of the immigration judge. A consultation is where that specific assessment happens — this is not a determination that can responsibly be made from general information alone.