On June 5, 2026, a federal judge in Rhode Island struck down four USCIS policies that paused or delayed certain immigration benefit decisions for applicants from 39 travel ban countries. In a 135-page decision, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. found that four USCIS policies were unlawful and ordered them vacated and set aside. The order is nationwide and means USCIS must immediately resume adjudications of pending cases caught in the freeze.
What changed
On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a landmark ruling in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, vacating four USCIS policies that had placed immigration benefits on hold for people from countries targeted by Trump administration travel bans.
The four policies vacated were:
-
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, including Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela.
-
Global Asylum Hold Policy: This halted adjudication of all asylum and withholding of removal applications, regardless of the applicant’s country of origin.
-
Comprehensive Re-Review Policy: This required USCIS to re-review and reconsider already approved benefit requests for any individual from a Travel Ban Country who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021.
-
Country-Specific Factors Policy: This updated the USCIS Policy Manual to direct adjudicators to treat country-specific factors from the travel ban as a significant negative factor when weighing discretion in benefit adjudications.
Both the Benefits Hold and the Global Asylum Hold originated in memos issued by USCIS Director Joseph Edlow in December 2025 and early 2026. The agency described the holds as a national security and vetting measure and said they would remain in place until lifted by a superseding directive from the USCIS Director.
Chief Judge McConnell found the policies unlawful on multiple grounds under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): 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 rejected the national security 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.
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. For months, people who did everything the law asked of them sat in limbo, watching deadlines pass and work permits expire while their applications went nowhere.
The vacatur remedy is significant. Instead of ordering relief for a specific list of people, it strikes down the policies themselves. When a court vacates a policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, the policy is set aside rather than simply paused for the people who sued. The relief is nationwide.
However, The Trump administration is expected to appeal, and it may request that a higher court pause the ruling while the appeal proceeds. If a stay is granted, the policies could effectively be reinstated while litigation continues. The court’s APA analysis leaves open the possibility that USCIS could try again with a more developed administrative record, a reasoned explanation, attention to reliance interests, and potentially notice-and-comment rulemaking. A repackaged policy built on the same pretext findings would face an uphill battle, but the agency has shown willingness to revise and re-issue.
For now, There are likely thousands of cases that were frozen under these policies. Whether USCIS resumes adjudications promptly — or moves slowly — will determine how quickly affected individuals see real relief.
Way forward
-
Monitor the appeal and any stay motion. The administration may seek an emergency stay pending appeal. Watch the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (1st Cir.) docket in Dorcas International Institute v. USCIS, No. 26-1547, for any motion for stay.
-
Pull frozen cases and assess immediate next steps. If you have clients from the 39 designated countries with pending asylum, I-485, I-765, or N-400 applications frozen since late 2025, obtain the status update from USCIS now. Expect adjudication offices to resume case review, but processing speed and timeline remain unknown.
-
Document reliance harm and lost work authorization. The court emphasized harm to applicants who complied with all requirements and lost jobs or legal status during the freeze. If your client needs to move for reinstatement of work authorization, early fees, or toll claims, prepare documentation of the freeze period impact.
-
Coordinate with employers on EAD renewals. Companies with employees whose work authorization renewals or green card applications were paused under these policies should monitor the situation closely. If renewal notices are outstanding, you may expect USCIS to begin processing them.
Disclaimer
Fola, Inc. is a software company and does not provide legal advice. This article summarizes a federal court decision and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for advice from a licensed immigration attorney. Immigration policy and court rulings can change without notice. Verify all information against the primary source and applicable law, and consult a qualified attorney before taking action based on this summary.