On July 21, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a partial administrative stay blocking key USCIS enforcement actions tied to H.R. 1 (the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”). The stay affects TPS-based work permits and asylum fee collection while litigation continues. USCIS has announced it will comply with the court’s order and will provide updated guidance as the case proceeds.
What changed
The court’s order in Venez. Ass’n of Mass., et al. v. United States Citizenship and Immigr. Servs., 26-cv-13038-NMG (D. Mass.), stays specific provisions of USCIS’s July 2025 Federal Register Notice, March 2026 website update, and April 2026 Interim Final Rule that implemented H.R. 1. The stay covers:
- TPS employment authorization expiration dates: Any TPS-based EAD previously extended must maintain its prior expiration date, freezing the new deadlines that H.R. 1 had imposed.
- Asylum application rejection: USCIS may not reject pending asylum applications solely for failure to pay the annual asylum fee (AAF).
- Work authorization termination: USCIS may not revoke work authorization based solely on non-payment of the AAF.
- Removal initiation: USCIS may not start removal proceedings based solely on an alien’s failure to pay the AAF.
Critically, the court’s order expressly allows USCIS to continue collecting the AAF itself. All other H.R. 1 requirements remain in full effect.
Why it matters
This stay creates immediate practitioner obligations and changes the risk calculus for affected clients:
For TPS holders: If you have a client holding a TPS-based EAD, that card will expire on its original (pre-H.R. 1) date, not the shortened deadline USCIS was enforcing. You must verify the card’s actual expiration date and plan renewal timing accordingly. Clients should not assume their work authorization will terminate on dates USCIS may have notified them under the new rule.
For asylum applicants: Pending I-589 applications cannot be rejected for AAF non-payment. However, applicants must still expect USCIS to send AAF notices and demand payment. The stay does not waive the fee—only its enforcement consequences (at this moment, pending further litigation). Applicants who receive an AAF notice should still pay to avoid future complications, even if the stay technically prevents immediate rejection or deportation.
For work authorization holders: An applicant whose work authorization was revoked or is about to be revoked solely for AAF non-payment may have grounds to request reinstatement or stay of termination. The stay is retrospective and prospective.
For adjudicators and officers: All other H.R. 1 provisions—fee increases, new documentary requirements, timeline changes, and eligibility restrictions unrelated to the AAF—remain operative. Do not conflate the partial stay with a total freeze on H.R. 1.
Way forward
-
Audit active TPS and asylum caseloads immediately. Cross-reference client EAD expiration dates against both the pre-H.R. 1 schedule and any USCIS notices they received. If dates conflict, prioritize renewal based on the original, longer deadline.
-
Instruct clients receiving AAF notices to pay the fee as instructed, despite the stay. The stay prevents rejection, revocation, or removal based on non-payment, but the fee itself remains collectible. Paying eliminates ambiguity and protects against future enforcement if the stay is lifted.
-
Monitor federal litigation docket. The District of Massachusetts case is ongoing. Expect USCIS to appeal or seek clarification, and expect further court orders. Subscribe to the USCIS newsroom or monitor pacer.uscis.gov for docket updates in 26-cv-13038-NMG.
-
Update client communication templates. If you’ve been advising clients to accept H.R. 1 timelines or fee obligations, revise those advisory letters to reflect the partial stay and note the case’s fluidity.
Disclaimer
Fola Form is a software platform for immigration practitioners, not a law firm, and this article is not legal advice. Verify all information against the official USCIS newsroom alert and consult a licensed immigration attorney about your specific situation. Federal court orders and agency policies can change without notice; check the court’s docket and USCIS guidance regularly as this case develops.