A federal judge in Rhode Island has struck down a series of Trump administration policies enacted in late 2025 that indefinitely halted legal immigration cases, leaving thousands in a state of prolonged uncertainty. On June 5, U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. vacated four major U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that suspended asylum application processing, froze immigration benefits and directed officers to determine whether an individual was a national security concern based on their country of origin.
What changed
USCIS imposed these restrictions shortly after an Afghan national allegedly shot two National Guard members in Washington D.C. on Nov. 26, 2025, killing one. A global asylum hold was put in place, meaning no one was granted asylum regardless of their nationality or the severity of the persecution they were fleeing.
A coalition of immigration advocacy organizations and labor unions, including the Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island and the Refugee Dream Center, filed a lawsuit against USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security on March 3, challenging the policies. McConnell ultimately sided with the coalition’s complaint, declaring the four policies unlawful because the agency has assumed statutory and regulatory authority it does not have and justified its actions with pretextual concerns of national security that mask anti-immigrant sentiments.
The court found that measures placed a hold on processing immigration benefit applications from people in 39 countries subject to Trump’s full or partial travel bans, affecting asylum, work permits, green cards, and citizenship applications across the board.
Why it matters
For practitioners, this ruling immediately reopens files that have been frozen for six months. The judge pointed to common rhetoric surrounding immigration policy instructing noncitizens to “do things the right way” but said in these cases, people were “doing just that” — filing appropriate paperwork, paying fees, submitting data and attending interviews — yet were still stuck waiting for answers.
The ruling threatens to push some immigrants in the country legally on time-limited visas to overstay the bounds of their status. Your clients with pending I-765 (work authorization), I-485 (green card), N-400 (naturalization), and asylum applications from the 39 designated countries should now expect resumption of processing. The ruling means that in addition to resuming processing immigration benefits, the administration will also need to schedule naturalization ceremonies for the thousands of immigrants on the cusp of becoming U.S. citizens.
The court’s explicit finding that USCIS lacked statutory authority for these blanket holds—and that the agency was acting on discriminatory grounds—creates a strong precedent against country-of-origin-based adjudication freezes going forward.
Way forward
- Docket reviews: Immediately audit all pending beneficiary cases from the 39 affected countries. Flag any N-400, I-485, I-765, and asylum applications that have been in adjudication hold since November 2025.
- Reactivation outreach: Contact clients waiting on decisions and reset reasonable expectations for processing timelines. Some cases may have aged significantly and may require updated documentation or interviews.
- Naturalization scheduling: For N-400 applicants whose oath ceremonies were canceled, begin filing new requests and coordinating with local USCIS field offices to schedule makeup ceremonies.
- Documentation refresh: In cases where client circumstances have changed materially during the hold, prepare updated affidavits or evidence for the record.
Disclaimer
This summary describes a federal court ruling; it is not legal advice. The information here reflects the opinion in McConnell v. USCIS and news reporting as of the date published. Immigration policy may change without notice, and court decisions can be appealed or stayed. You must consult a licensed immigration attorney regarding your specific situation and verify all information against the primary source and the full court opinion. This website is maintained by a software company, not a law firm.