On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a sweeping nationwide decision vacating four USCIS policies that had frozen asylum decisions and work permit, green card, and citizenship processing for nationals of 39 countries. The court vacated the USCIS policies that have frozen immigration benefits for nationals of thirty-nine countries since late last year and held that all four challenged policies are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, declared them invalid, and set them aside. The ruling applies nationwide and requires USCIS to resume adjudication immediately.
What changed
The December 2, 2025 memorandum (PM-602-0192) imposed the initial adjudication hold tied to the nineteen-country list and placed a nationwide hold on asylum applications. The January 1, 2026 memorandum (PM-602-0194) expanded the hold to cover all thirty-nine Travel Ban Countries.
The court vacated four separate USCIS directives: the Benefits Hold Policy that froze work permit (EAD) approvals, green card adjudications, naturalization, and other immigration benefits for nationals of approximately 39 countries; the Global Asylum Hold Policy that halted processing of all asylum claims across the board, regardless of country of origin; and the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy that required USCIS to re-examine and reopen previously approved benefits for applicants from travel ban countries.
The judge has ordered USCIS to resume the processing of immigration applications filed by people from the 39 countries who were affected by Trump’s travel ban, as well as asylum applications. Judge McConnell also invalidated a USCIS policy that required immigrants from countries on the Trump administration’s travel ban list—who had already been approved for immigration benefits after entering the United States after 2021—to undergo a second review of their cases.
In a lengthy 135-page court opinion, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell found that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) acted unlawfully by implementing broad restrictions without authorization from Congress or established regulations. The court concluded that the policy unfairly targeted applicants based on their country of origin and violated federal immigration and administrative law.
Why it matters
Unlike the earlier preliminary injunction wins in other districts, which have generally limited relief to the named plaintiffs in those cases, the remedy here is vacatur of the underlying policies themselves. That carries far broader effect. This is not merely a win for the plaintiff organizations—it voids the policies nationwide, meaning every pending case for nationals of the 39 affected countries must now move forward under standard adjudication.
The broad ruling would impact all pending cases at USCIS involving people from the travel ban countries, not just those included in the lawsuit. It is an important legal victory to ensure that legal immigration pathways remain open and that USCIS is held accountable to doing their congressionally mandated job of adjudicating applications.
Judge McConnell concluded that USCIS exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found that USCIS claimed powers not granted by Congress, failed to adequately justify the challenged policies, failed to consider the reliance interests of affected applicants, and adopted policies that were inconsistent with the governing immigration statutes. As a result, the court held that the policies were unlawful and arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
For your clients: Affirmative asylum interviews and decisions should resume nationwide. Adjustment, work permit, travel document, and naturalization cases that were paused under categorical country-based holds should return to ordinary case processing. Previously approved cases also cannot be reopened solely because of nationality or an entry date tied to those policies.
Critical limitation: While some early reports suggested that the court had struck down the Administration’s travel ban itself, that is not what happened. Instead, the court targeted the mechanism USCIS used to implement portions of those restrictions through its internal adjudication practices. The travel ban proclamations themselves remain in effect; only USCIS’s implementation through benefits holds and case freezes has been struck down.
Way forward
-
Check pending cases immediately. Pull receipt notices and prior correspondence for any client from the 39 affected countries. USCIS adjudication should resume under normal timeframes; follow up on any case that has been pending or in RFE status since late 2025.
-
Clarify work authorization and derivative status. If a client lost work permit renewal eligibility or had an EAD hold, send a follow-up request for adjudication status. Do not assume automatic resumption—proactive communication with USCIS is still necessary.
-
Document the hold history. Keep copies of any USCIS notices referencing the policy pause or national security review. If a case was reopened or marked for re-review under the vacated re-review policy, the court’s vacatur may support a request to return to prior approval status.
-
Monitor for government appeal and stay motion. DHS may appeal and very possibly seek a stay. Until the dust settles, the status of pending cases for affected applicants could shift again, potentially more than once. Check the District of Rhode Island docket in Dorcas International Institute v. USCIS (No. 1:26-cv-00132) regularly for updates.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. It is provided for informational purposes only and reflects the content of the court decision as of the published date. Immigration policy and litigation status can change without notice. You must verify all information against the primary court filing and applicable law before advising a client or filing any motion. Consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction for case-specific guidance. The source document is the full opinion in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-00132 (D.R.I. June 5, 2026), available through the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island docket system.