On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued an order in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services that vacates three major USCIS policy directives affecting nationals of 39 travel-ban countries and asylum applicants. The order went into effect immediately, and on June 12, USCIS filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
What changed
USCIS had issued policy memos PM 602-0192 and PM 602-0194 requiring a Benefits Hold Policy (hold and review of certain benefit requests by applicants from “countries of concern”) and a Comprehensive Re-Review Policy (re-review of approved benefit requests by applicants from “countries of concern” who entered the U.S. on or after Jan. 20, 2021). USCIS also required a Global Asylum Hold Policy, which held and reviewed all asylum applications regardless of the applicant’s nationality.
The court found that each policy—the global asylum hold policy, the adjudication benefits hold policy, the comprehensive re-review policy, and the “country-specific factors” policy—violated the Administrative Procedure Act and conflicted with existing law. The Court determined such policies violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and longstanding precedent inhibiting USCIS’s ability to apply “arbitrary and capricious” measures against applicants. The Court entered its final judgment on June 11, 2026.
Why it matters
For practitioners, the vacatur has immediate, nationwide impact on pending cases. The vacatur of the challenged policies means that USCIS’s holds on adjudications of immigration benefit applications for nationals of the 39 travel ban countries, as well as the global asylum hold, should no longer be in effect. Any applications or petitions filed with USCIS that have been paused because of these policies should move forward.
USCIS can no longer consider an applicant’s country of origin as a negative factor when deciding cases that allow for agency discretion. This removes a significant obstacle in I-485s, I-765s, I-131s, I-539s, and other benefit requests that require discretionary approval for nationals of affected countries.
The re-review policy had created uncertainty for individuals who had already received approvals and believed their cases had been resolved—that policy is now void, and approved cases should not be reopened on that ground.
Critically, the June 5, 2026 court decision did not address the underlying travel bans, which remain in effect. Instead, the decision vacates specific USCIS policies affecting immigration benefit requests filed with that agency. The underlying presidential proclamations stay in place; only USCIS’s internal pause mechanisms are struck down.
Way forward
- Resume adjudication immediately: USCIS states that those directives should be treated as if they are not in effect. Contact USCIS service centers to confirm status of pending applications; request expedited adjudication of held cases if appropriate.
- Reframe pending discretionary cases: Remove any adverse nationality-based statements or analysis from RFE responses, appeals, or new filings. Emphasize that nationality cannot be a negative discretionary factor.
- Monitor appeal: The government has discretion to appeal this decision and is expected to do so. It could also ask the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to issue a stay of this district court decision while the appeal is litigated. A stay would suspend the vacatur pending appellate resolution. Watch for First Circuit filings.
- Flag re-review cases: For clients whose approvals were under re-review, confirm closure with USCIS in writing; cite the vacatur.
Disclaimer
This article is provided by Fola Editorial as a plain-English summary of the court order and USCIS guidance, not as legal advice. This is not a substitute for consultation with a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction. Immigration policy and court precedent are subject to change without notice. Please verify all information against the source documents linked above and the primary court order before relying on it for client advice or filing decisions.