Federal Court Strikes Down USCIS Policies That Delayed Immigration Decisions for Applicants from 39 Countries
Federal Court Strikes Down USCIS Policies That Delayed Immigration Decisions for Applicants from 39 Countries
Updated June 8, 2026
A federal court has issued an important ruling affecting many immigration applicants from 39 designated countries. On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island struck down several USCIS policies that had delayed or prevented final decisions on certain immigration benefit applications, including asylum applications, work permits, green card applications, and naturalization applications.
This is a significant development for affected applicants and families. For months, many individuals who had properly filed applications, paid government filing fees, completed biometrics, attended interviews, and complied with USCIS requirements were left waiting without final decisions because of policies tied to their country of nationality or birth. The court found that USCIS could not place applicants in indefinite legal limbo simply because they were from countries included in the administration’s travel-ban related policies.
The ruling came in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, a lawsuit brought by immigrant-serving nonprofit organizations and labor unions whose clients and members had been affected by the USCIS delays. The plaintiffs challenged several USCIS policies under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that USCIS had exceeded its legal authority, failed to provide adequate reasoning, ignored the serious reliance interests of applicants, and improperly treated applicants differently based on country of origin.
The court agreed that the challenged USCIS policies were unlawful. In strong language, the court found that the policies had placed “the lives of countless individuals on hold” based solely on their countries of birth. The court further concluded that USCIS had acted contrary to law and had failed to follow the procedural and substantive requirements that govern federal agency action.
The affected countries identified in the prior USCIS policy include Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burma/Myanmar, Burundi, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, The Gambia, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
The court struck down four separate USCIS policies. First, the court addressed a global asylum hold policy, which had halted adjudications of certain asylum and withholding of removal requests. Second, the court addressed a benefits hold policy, which delayed or froze adjudications of immigration benefit requests filed by people from the designated travel-ban countries. These benefit requests included applications for adjustment of status, employment authorization, and naturalization. Third, the court addressed a comprehensive re-review policy, which required USCIS to re-review or reconsider certain previously approved immigration benefits for people from the designated countries who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021. Fourth, the court addressed a country-specific factors policy, which instructed USCIS officers to treat certain country-related factors as significant negative factors when deciding discretionary immigration benefits.
The ruling is important because it confirms a basic principle: USCIS must follow the immigration laws enacted by Congress and the regulations governing its own adjudications. The government may conduct lawful security screening and may evaluate each application on its individual facts, but it may not indefinitely refuse to decide applications based solely on nationality or country of origin.
However, it is also important to understand what this decision does not mean. The court did not automatically approve every pending case. The court did not say that every applicant from one of the 39 countries is eligible for immigration benefits. The court did not eliminate normal USCIS review, background checks, admissibility analysis, eligibility requirements, or discretionary adjudication. Each case must still be decided based on its own facts, evidence, immigration history, and applicable law.
The decision also does not necessarily eliminate every travel restriction or consular-processing issue connected to the administration’s broader travel-ban policies. This case focused on USCIS benefit adjudications, including applications pending inside the United States. Applicants should not assume that the court ruling automatically resolves visa issuance issues at U.S. consulates abroad, international travel risks, or separate entry restrictions. Those issues may involve different agencies, different rules, and different legal challenges.
For affected applicants, the most immediate practical impact is that USCIS should no longer rely on the vacated policies to keep covered applications frozen indefinitely. Cases that were delayed because of the policies may now be able to move forward. Applicants may begin seeing case activity, Requests for Evidence, interview scheduling, approval notices, denial notices, or other USCIS action. In some cases, there may still be delays as USCIS updates internal procedures or decides whether to appeal.
Applicants should not panic, but they should be prepared. If you are from one of the affected countries and have a pending asylum application, work permit application, green card application, naturalization application, travel document request, humanitarian parole request, or other USCIS benefit request, this ruling may be relevant to your case. The next step depends on the type of application, how long the case has been pending, whether USCIS has issued any recent notice, whether you have completed biometrics, whether an interview has occurred, and whether there are any independent eligibility or admissibility issues.
Affected applicants should take several steps now. First, keep copies of all immigration documents, notices, applications, receipts, approval notices, denial notices, biometrics notices, interview notices, and correspondence from USCIS or any other government agency. Second, check your USCIS online account and case status regularly. Third, update your address with USCIS immediately if you move, because missing a government notice can seriously harm your case. Fourth, respond to any USCIS Request for Evidence, Notice of Intent to Deny, interview notice, or biometrics notice on time. Missing deadlines can result in denial or abandonment of an application.
Applicants should also avoid making major immigration decisions based only on online rumors or social media posts. This ruling is positive, but it does not remove the need for careful legal analysis. Applicants should not refile applications, withdraw pending cases, travel internationally, abandon status, or assume approval without reviewing the specific facts of their case. International travel can be especially risky for applicants with pending cases, prior unlawful presence, prior removal orders, criminal history, or unresolved admissibility concerns.
The government may appeal the ruling or issue new guidance. USCIS may also attempt to adopt replacement policies or additional screening procedures that comply with the court’s order. That means the legal situation may continue to develop. For now, the court’s decision is an important protection against indefinite nationality-based delays, but applicants should still expect individual review.
At Elkhalil Law, P.C., we view this ruling as a positive development for applicants who have been stuck in uncertainty through no fault of their own. Immigration applicants who follow the rules should not be left indefinitely without a decision simply because of where they were born. At the same time, every immigration case remains fact-specific. Eligibility, evidence, immigration history, prior filings, criminal history, admissibility, and case posture still matter.
Our office will continue monitoring this development closely, including whether the government appeals, whether USCIS issues new implementation guidance, and whether affected cases begin moving again. For clients whose cases may be impacted, we will evaluate the next appropriate step and contact you directly if action is needed.