A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully barred applicants from 39 travel-ban countries from receiving decisions on asylum, work permits, green cards and citizenship. Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, ruled that USCIS had adopted a series of unlawful policies targeting people from 39 African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries. If you represent clients from any of the 39 designated countries awaiting benefit adjudications, this ruling removes the legal basis for the freeze and requires immediate case status reassessment.
What changed
Chief Judge McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated the USCIS policies that have frozen immigration benefits for nationals of thirty-nine countries since late last year, holding that all four challenged policies are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, declared them invalid, and set them aside.
The four vacated policies are:
- The Benefits Hold Policy — froze work permit (EAD) approvals, green card adjudications, naturalization, and other immigration benefits for nationals of approximately 39 countries designated “high risk” under executive travel bans
- The Global Asylum Hold Policy — halted processing of all asylum claims across the board, regardless of country of origin
- The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy — required USCIS to re-examine and reopen previously approved benefits for applicants from travel ban countries
- USCIS revised its Policy Manual to instruct adjudicators to consider country-specific concerns associated with travel-ban countries as significant negative discretionary factors. The court found this policy unlawful and vacated it.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in March by a coalition of immigrant service organizations and labor unions challenging a suite of policies adopted starting in November by USCIS.
Why it matters
The practical result was 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. Chief Judge McConnell found the policies unlawful on multiple grounds under the Administrative Procedure Act: USCIS failed to provide a “reasoned explanation” for the policies and did not account for the reliance interests of hundreds of thousands of people whose pending applications were frozen.
The court also rejected the government’s national security rationale. The government framed the freeze as a temporary security measure following the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. in late 2025. The court rejected this framing, finding that the policies went far beyond any rational connection to that incident — and that derogatory statements made by administration officials after the shooting were evidence of anti-immigrant animus driving the policies.
Key distinction: 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. The ruling kills the processing freeze, not the travel bans themselves.
Way forward
-
Identify affected pending cases now. Pull all I-485, I-765, I-130, I-140, I-140, N-400, and asylum applications filed by nationals of the 39 designated countries. The hold is lifted immediately for adjudication purposes.
-
Contact clients with status updates. Explain that the freeze is no longer in effect, but also note that DHS is expected to appeal and may seek a stay. Processing resumption may not be instantaneous; USCIS will need time to clear the backlog.
-
Monitor for USCIS compliance. Expect DHS to appeal and very possibly to seek a stay. Until the dust settles, the status of pending cases for affected applicants could shift again, potentially more than once. Prepare clients for possible further litigation delays.
-
Document all harm. For clients who lost work authorization, jobs, or legal status during the freeze, preserve evidence of lost wages and employment disruption. These may be relevant to future damages claims or motions if the case is relitigated.
Disclaimer
This is a plain-English explanation of a federal court decision, not legal advice. I am not a law firm or attorney. The ruling may be appealed or stayed, and administrative policy can change without notice. Verify all information against the primary court decision and current USCIS guidance before relying on it for client representation. Consult a licensed immigration attorney regarding the specific impact on your pending cases.