On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated USCIS policies that had frozen immigration benefits for nationals of thirty-nine countries, holding that all four challenged policies are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and setting them aside. The vacatur is nationwide, affecting all pending applications—not just the plaintiffs in the case.
What changed
The Benefits Hold Policy placed an indefinite hold on adjudication of all immigration benefit requests, including adjustment of status, employment authorization, and naturalization, filed by individuals from the thirty-nine Travel Ban Countries. The Global Asylum Hold Policy halted adjudication of all asylum and withholding of removal applications, regardless of the applicant’s country of origin. The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy required USCIS to re-review and reconsider already approved benefit requests for any individual from a Travel Ban Country who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021. The Country-Specific Factors Policy updated the USCIS Policy Manual to direct adjudicators to treat country-specific factors from the travel ban as a significant negative factor when weighing discretion in benefit adjudications.
USCIS had imposed the holds through two policy memoranda: a December 2, 2025 memorandum (PM-602-0192) that imposed the initial adjudication hold tied to the nineteen-country list and placed a nationwide hold on asylum applications, and a January 1, 2026 memorandum (PM-602-0194) that expanded the hold to cover all thirty-nine Travel Ban Countries.
Chief Judge McConnell held that the policies violated both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found that the policies were arbitrary and capricious because USCIS did not provide a reasoned explanation for enacting the policies, did not account for reliance interests in enacting the policies, and provided a pretextual reason for enacting the policies.
Why it matters
This is a significant ruling because, unlike earlier preliminary injunction wins in other districts which generally limited relief to named plaintiffs, the remedy here is vacatur of the underlying policies themselves, which carries far broader effect. When a court vacates a policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, the policy is set aside rather than simply paused for the people who sued, which is a meaningful difference in reach.
The practical result had been that applicants who had filed properly, paid their fees, completed biometrics, and attended interviews were left waiting for months with no decision, and in many cases lost work authorization, jobs, and legal status while their cases sat frozen. By vacating the four policies, the court removed the legal basis USCIS had used to justify the holds—in practical terms, the agency can no longer point to these policies as a reason to sit on a pending asylum application, work permit, green card, or naturalization case.
The decision does not impact separate restrictions that the State Department implemented, including a “pause” on the granting of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, and President Trump’s 39-country travel/entry ban. The court specifically distinguished between the President’s authority to restrict entry and USCIS’s authority to adjudicate benefits; the travel-ban proclamations themselves remain in place unless separately overturned.
Way forward
-
Check pending case status. Note that the court did not order USCIS to decide cases by a particular date, so this is not a switch that instantly clears every backlog; how quickly any individual case moves will depend on where it sits in the process and on how USCIS responds to the ruling. Contact USCIS to confirm your client’s case is no longer on administrative hold.
-
Prepare to move stalled applications forward. By vacating and setting aside the challenged policies, the court’s order is expected to set the stage for USCIS to resume adjudicating nonimmigrant petitions, work permits, green card applications, and other benefit requests for affected individuals; employers with sponsored employees whose Form I-129, Form I-485, Form I-765, or other benefit request applications had stalled may see movement on those cases.
-
Monitor for government appeal or stay. The government may appeal to the First Circuit, which is the most likely near-term step, as DHS has already signaled in related litigation that it views these policies as core national security functions. The government may also ask the district court or the First Circuit to stay the vacatur so the holds can remain in effect while the appeal proceeds; whether a stay is granted will shape what happens to pending cases in the interim.
-
Document fees and reliance interests. The court noted that, a month after freezing benefits as an “operational necessity” to protect national security, USCIS issued exemptions for athletes participating in the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics—a security risk that evaporates when the applicant can help win a soccer match is not a genuine security rationale. If your client meets grounds for relief but was denied pending the hold, the vacatur removes the policy barrier.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general informational purposes and reflects the law as of June 5, 2026. This is not legal advice. Folaform is a software company and news platform, not a law firm, and nothing in this article creates an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law and policy can change rapidly without notice, and court decisions are subject to appeal and modification. The government may seek a stay of this ruling or appeal to the First Circuit, which could change the practical effect of the court’s order. For advice on how this ruling applies to your specific case, consult a licensed immigration attorney and verify all information against the primary court decision and official USCIS guidance.