Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell ruled that USCIS unlawfully halted adjudication of immigration benefits for applicants from 39 countries subject to Trump’s travel bans and improperly suspended asylum processing nationwide. The decision, issued Friday, June 5, 2026, restores the agency’s legal obligation to issue final decisions on pending cases frozen under policies implemented after the November 2025 National Guard shooting incident.
What changed
The policies, implemented around Thanksgiving, prevented immigrants from the affected countries from receiving decisions on applications for green cards, work permits, citizenship, and other immigration benefits. Trump also ordered a review of immigration benefits previously granted to individuals from those countries during the Biden administration.
In a 135-page ruling, McConnell said USCIS “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo” and found the agency lacked legal authority to impose the sweeping freezes. The lawsuit was filed in March by a coalition of immigrant service organizations and labor unions challenging the policies, which affected applicants from 39 African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries covered by Trump’s full or partial travel bans.
McConnell found that the affected immigrants had complied with the legal immigration process established by Congress and federal regulations, yet remained stuck waiting months for decisions that USCIS refused to make, noting that “USCIS has neither ‘followed the law’ nor ‘done things the right way.’”
Why it matters
This binding federal court order immediately rescinds USCIS’s adjudication freeze for applicants from the 39 affected countries. The broad ruling impacts all pending cases at USCIS involving people from the travel ban countries, not just those included in the lawsuit.
For practitioners, this means:
- Frozen cases reopen: Any I-485 (green card), I-131 (advance parole), I-765 (work permit), N-400 (naturalization), or other benefit application stalled under the freeze must now be adjudicated on the merits.
- No arbitrary country-based gatekeeping: USCIS cannot use a blanket moratorium to deny or indefinitely delay decisions based solely on applicant nationality.
- Timelines reset: The adjudication freeze period likely does not count against normal processing windows, making cases now overdue for final decisions.
Note: The agency often grants asylum, but only for those already in the United States when they apply. Immigration judges grant asylum to those who are stopped at the border; the ruling does not affect them, and neither do the policies that sparked the lawsuit. The ruling applies to USCIS benefit adjudication only, not border enforcement or immigration court asylum decisions.
Way forward
- Check pending cases immediately: Identify all client cases involving nationals of the 39 travel-ban countries with pending USCIS benefit applications. Flag those that were frozen or stalled after November 2025.
- Request status updates: Contact the relevant USCIS service center or field office to confirm that adjudication has resumed and request updated processing times or interview scheduling.
- Monitor docket: The government may appeal or seek a stay. Track the docket on https://www.uscis.gov/ or consult the case caption to watch for developments.
- Document the freeze: For clients whose cases were delayed, retain evidence of the freezing period in case of future requests for fee waivers, priority date protection, or other equitable relief.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice. It summarizes a federal court ruling on USCIS policy, but immigration law is complex and applications vary widely. Immigration policy can change without notice, including through appeal or modification of this order. Verify the current status of USCIS adjudication freezes and the list of affected countries by checking the primary court decision and current USCIS guidance at https://www.uscis.gov/. Consult a licensed immigration attorney to assess the impact on your specific case.