Federal Court Vacates USCIS’s Freeze on Immigration Benefits for Applicants From 39 Countries
On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated and set aside several USCIS policies that paused, delayed, re-reviewed, or negatively weighted immigration benefit adjudications for noncitizens from designated “Travel Ban Countries.” See In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, et al. v. USCIS, et al.
The court held that USCIS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by adopting the challenged policies, declared the policies unlawful, and determined the policies arbitrary and capricious. All four policies listed below were vacated and set aside in their entirety.
NOTE: On June 12, 2026, USCIS filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. While USCIS has stated that it will follow the order, it is possible that USCIS may seek a stay of the District Court decision pending appeal.
The Challenged Policies
| Policy | Summary |
|---|---|
| Global Asylum Hold Policy | Halted adjudications of asylum and withholding-of-removal requests, regardless of country of origin. |
| Benefits Hold Policy | Put on hold immigration benefit adjudications for people from “Travel Ban Countries,” including adjustment of status, employment authorization, and naturalization. |
| Comprehensive Re-Review Policy | Required re-review of previously approved benefit requests for people from Travel Ban Countries who entered the U.S. on or after January 20, 2021. |
| Country-Specific Factors Policy | Directed USCIS personnel to treat country-specific factors from the travel-ban proclamations as significant negative factors in discretionary benefit adjudications. |
Key Takeaways
- The court rejected the government’s argument that the challenged policies implicated national security and therefore were largely beyond judicial review, holding that invoking national security does not automatically insulate agency action from APA review.
- Neither the Travel Ban Proclamations nor INA § 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) authorize USCIS to restrict or burden immigration benefits for people already inside the United States. While Section 1182(f) authorizes the President to suspend the entry of classes of noncitizens into the US, it does not authorize USCIS to restrict the ability of people already in the country to obtain immigration benefits.
- USCIS has a duty to adjudicate. Policies such as the Benefits Hold Policy which effectively bar final adjudication of immigration petitions are contrary to statutory and regulatory language and intent, as well as Congress’s stated expectation that immigration benefit applications should generally be processed within 180 days.
- Country-specific negative factors considered in adjustment-of-status and immigrant employment-authorization applications are contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), which prohibits discrimination in immigrant visa issuance based on nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. The court held that Trump v. Hawaii is distinguishable, because it concerns entry restrictions for people outside the US, not domestic processing of benefit applications by noncitizens already admitted into the country.
- Discretion is not a basis for violating the law, and allowing USCIS to exercise discretion over public-safety and national-security considerations through the challenged policies would allow the agency to discriminate freely against applicants from Travel Ban Countries and render § 1152(a)(1)(A) meaningless.
Potential Impact of the Decision
The Dorcas decision has broad applicability to various USCIS applications. For example, the court’s reasoning in Dorcas may be cited in the following contexts:
- Applicants whose pending applications have been stalled because they are nationals of a “Travel Ban Country”, or applicants whose asylum petitions have been stalled or deprioritized, can point to the court’s vacatur of the Benefits Hold Policy and Global Asylum Hold Policy. Applicants could also argue by analogy that any equivalent blanket hold is similarly unlawful.
- Applicants who received RFEs or NOIDs citing country-specific negative factors can respond by relying on the court’s rejection of the Country-Specific Factors Policy, and the court’s rejection of the ability to treat nationality, country of birth, or country-level vetting concerns as significant negative factors.
- Applicants seeking adjustment of status or employment authorization who have been affected by nationality-based criteria can cite to the court’s § 1152(a)(1)(A) analysis rejecting nationality-based discrimination in immigrant-visa-related processes.
- Applicants whose naturalization is delayed by a categorical hold can refer to the court’s discussion of USCIS’s statutory and regulatory duties to adjudicate naturalization applications.
- Applicants for whom USCIS invokes national security concerns without individualized facts can cite to Dorcas for the proposition that national-security labels do not eliminate APA review and must be supported by reasoned agency explanation.
- Applicants already granted a benefit but subjected to a broad re-review can use the court’s rejection of the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy and its emphasis on individualized statutory procedures for revocation or termination.
