On June 5, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts vacated four sweeping USCIS policies that had suspended adjudication of immigration benefits for nationals of 39 countries and all asylum seekers. The court found that two sweeping USCIS policies — one placing an indefinite hold on benefit applications from nationals of 39 countries and all asylum seekers (set forth in PM 602-0192 and PM 602-0194), and another treating an applicant’s nationality as a “significant negative factor” in discretionary decisions (announced in PA 2025-26) — are likely unlawful. The ruling signals that these nationality-based restrictions face serious legal vulnerabilities in courts nationwide.
What changed
Judge Julia E. Kobick found that two sweeping USCIS policies — one placing an indefinite hold on benefit applications from nationals of 39 countries and all asylum seekers (set forth in PM 602-0192 and PM 602-0194), and another treating an applicant’s nationality as a “significant negative factor” in discretionary decisions (announced in PA 2025-26) — are likely unlawful.
The court ordered USCIS to immediately lift the adjudicative hold for 22 individual applicants who demonstrated concrete harm, and to stop applying the nationality-based negative factor to their adjustment of status and work authorization applications.
The court’s detailed legal analysis found multiple independent grounds for vacatur. The court concluded that the adjudicative hold violates federal statutes and USCIS’s own regulations, which require the agency to decide applications for naturalization, asylum, adjustment of status, and work authorization within the frameworks Congress established. It also found that USCIS failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the policy and failed to consider the reliance interests of thousands of applicants whose lives have been placed on indefinite hold. And it held that treating nationality as a negative factor in adjustment of status and work authorization cases violates the Immigration and Nationality Act’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in visa issuance.
Why it matters
The current injunction applies only to the 22 named applicants who submitted declarations, but the ruling’s implications reach much further. The court’s detailed legal analysis sends a strong signal: these policies are on shaky legal ground. Other courts around the country have reached similar conclusions, and the court itself ordered the parties to confer about extending the injunction to additional plaintiffs by May 7, 2026. This suggests the legal landscape is shifting in favor of affected applicants.
For practitioners representing nationals from the 39 affected countries, the opinion provides strong statutory and regulatory ammunition. The court’s detailed analysis — particularly its conclusion that the adjudicative hold violates 8 U.S.C. § 1446, 8 U.S.C. § 1158, and USCIS’s own regulations, and that the significant negative factor policy runs afoul of 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A)‘s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination — provides a strong legal foundation that attorneys can draw on when representing affected applicants.
However, expect immediate government action. The court itself ordered the parties to confer about extending the injunction to additional plaintiffs by May 7, 2026. That suggests the legal landscape may continue to shift in favor of affected applicants in the coming weeks and months. The Trump administration is likely to appeal and seek a stay, so implementation timelines remain uncertain.
Way forward
-
Document concrete harm. If you represent a national from one of the 39 affected countries with a pending application, gather evidence of specific, measurable injury: job loss, expired authorization, inability to travel, family hardship. The 22 applicants granted relief submitted sworn declarations detailing concrete harms; your client record should do the same.
-
Brief the decision to USCIS. When you file a motion to lift the hold or request expedited adjudication on a pending case, cite the court’s statutory findings, especially 8 U.S.C. § 1446 (naturalization), § 1158 (asylum), and § 1152(a)(1)(A) (nationality-based discrimination in visa issuance). Frame your request as requiring USCIS to comply with the court’s order.
-
Monitor for stay or appeal. Check for government notices of appeal and motions to stay the order. A stay would pause the ruling’s effect pending appellate resolution. Track the case docket and parallel litigation in other circuits.
-
Consult a licensed attorney. If you are from one of the 39 affected countries and have a pending application for asylum, naturalization, adjustment of status, or work authorization, consider speaking with an immigration attorney.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Articles.folaform.com is a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific; outcomes depend on your individual circumstances, jurisdiction, and current administrative and legal developments. The decision above is binding only on the district court and parties; appellate outcomes may differ. USCIS may seek a stay or appeal, potentially affecting implementation. You must consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction to understand how this ruling applies to your specific case and to represent you before USCIS or in court. Policy can change without notice; verify all information against the primary source materials linked above before relying on it for any filing, motion, or litigation.