Federal Court Vacates Four USCIS Policies Freezing Green Cards, Work Permits, and Naturalization for Nationals of 39 Countries (Dorcas v. USCIS)
On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a 135-page decision in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS (D.R.I. June 5, 2026) vacating four USCIS policies nationwide. The central policy, the Benefits Hold and Global Asylum Hold, had paused adjudication of adjustment of status (I-485) applications, employment authorization documents (EADs), and naturalization for nationals of thirty-nine travel-ban-designated countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Venezuela. The ruling is effective immediately, but a government appeal and emergency stay motion are expected.
Background: How the Policies Were Created
Following two high-profile security incidents involving Afghan nationals in 2025, USCIS issued a series of internal policy memoranda that froze immigration benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 countries identified in Presidential Proclamations 10949 and 10998 The court found that these proclamations, grounded in INA § 212(f), addressed only entry at the border, not domestic processing of benefits for people already inside the United States. USCIS had no authority to extend entry restrictions into an indefinite domestic adjudication freeze.
Judge McConnell documented in detail the public statements made by senior officials characterizing immigrants as “killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies” from “hellholes” and “shithole countries.” He found these statements probative of anti-immigrant animus- a key factor in his finding that the policies were pretextual and arbitrary. The court concluded: applicants from these countries had done everything right – filed paperwork, paid fees, attended interviews – yet USCIS “refuses to adjudicate” their cases. “The rule of law,” he wrote, “has to apply to everyone equally.”
The Court’s Four Holdings – Each Policy Vacated
1. Benefits Hold Policy (PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194)
USCIS placed an indefinite hold on all final adjudications (approvals, denials, and dismissals) for I-485 adjustment of status, EADs, and naturalization applications filed by nationals of all 39 Travel Ban Countries. The court held this was “fundamentally inconsistent” with the INA and USCIS’s own regulations, which impose non-discretionary duties to adjudicate completed applications. Naturalization regulations require a decision at or
within 120 days of the interview; adjustment and EAD regulations impose notification and explanation duties on USCIS. An indefinite, nationality-based moratorium has no statutory basis.
2. Global Asylum Hold Policy (PM-602-0192)
USCIS ordered a hold on all asylum and withholding of removal applications, regardless of nationality, pending a “comprehensive review.” The court found this directly conflicts with INA § 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), which requires final asylum adjudications to be completed within 180 days absent “exceptional circumstances”, an exception the government did not invoke. Withholding and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protections are mandatory once eligibility is established; they cannot be suspended by internal memo.
3. Comprehensive Re-Review Policy (PM-602-0192)
USCIS directed staff to re-review all previously approved benefits, including grants of asylum, adjustment of status, EADs, and naturalization- for Travel Ban Country nationals who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021, based solely on nationality and entry date. The court held that Congress has already prescribed individualized procedures for revoking or terminating each benefit type. USCIS cannot substitute a mass, nationality-based re-review for those statutory procedures.
4. Country-Specific Factors Policy (Policy Alert PA-2025-26)
USCIS amended its Policy Manual to require adjudicators to treat Travel Ban country origin as a “significant negative factor” in all discretionary benefit decisions linked to immigrant visas. The court held this violates 8
U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), the 1965 anti-discrimination provision that prohibits nationality-based discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas. The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018), recognized § 1152(a)(1)(A) limits discretionary benefits linked to immigrant visa availability. USCIS cannot treat country of birth as an automatic negative weight in those adjudications.
Relief Granted
“[T]he Challenged Policies placed the lives of countless individuals on hold – solely by virtue of their countries of birth.”- Chief Judge McConnell, Dorcas v. USCIS (June 5, 2026)
The court vacated all four policies in their entirety and issued a declaratory judgment that each is unlawful under 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A) and (C). No permanent injunction was entered given vacatur provides complete relief.
Cases frozen solely because of an applicant’s country of birth must now return to normal adjudication under the INA and USCIS regulations. Previously approved benefits may not be subjected to the mass re-review program. Adjudicators may not treat Travel Ban country origin as an automatic negative factor in immigrant-visa-linked decisions.
Vacatur is effective upon entry of the order but is subject to a government appeal and potential emergency stay. The First Circuit could reinstate the policies on short notice. Do not advise affected employees to act based solely on this alert. Confirm with USILAW counsel that no stay has been entered.
Who Is Affected
| Employee Population | Action Priority | Key Concern |
| Employees with pending I-485 (Adjustment of Status) from any of the 39 Travel Ban Countries | Immediate Review | Cases frozen under the Benefits Hold should resume normal adjudication. No decision deadlines were set by the court – timelines will vary case by case. |
| Employees awaiting EAD renewal or initial EAD from Travel Ban Countries | Immediate Review | Work authorization cases held under the Benefits Hold should return to the queue. Employees at risk of work authorization gaps should be identified immediately. |
| Employees with naturalization applications or pending oath ceremonies | Immediate Review | Cancelled or deferred naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies attributable to the Benefits Hold should now be rescheduled – pending any stay. |
| Asylum / withholding applicants (all nationalities) | Immediate Review | The Global Asylum Hold applied regardless of nationality. Cases stalled under that policy should return to adjudication. |
| Employees whose previously approved benefits were reopened for re-review | Immediate Review | The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy is vacated. USCIS may not apply the mass re-review regime. If an employee’s approved benefit was reopened solely on nationality/entry date grounds, that re-review lacks legal basis under this ruling. |
| All other immigration benefit applicants from the 39 designated countries | Monitor | Country-Specific Factors Policy vacated- nationality may no longer be treated as an automatic negative factor in immigrant-visa-linked discretionary decisions. |
What USILAW Recommends: Action Items
- Identify affected employees immediately. Pull a list of all employees from the 39 Travel Ban Countries with pending I-485, EAD, naturalization, or asylum applications. Cross-reference against known processing holds or deferred interviews since November 2025.
- Do not act prior to confirming whether a stay is in place. Before advising any affected employee to expect resumed processing or to take any filing action, confirm with USILAW counsel that the government has not obtained an emergency stay from the First Circuit. A stay would reinstate the vacated policies immediately.
- Flag employees at risk of work authorization gaps. Employees whose EAD renewals were stalled face the most immediate operational risk. Identify those cases and coordinate with USILAW on expedite requests or interim work authorization strategies as needed.
- Review re-opened benefit files. If any employee’s previously approved benefit- asylum grant, adjustment approval, EAD, or naturalization- was reopened for re-review solely on country-of-origin grounds, document it and contact your USILAW attorney. The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy has been vacated; that re-review has no legal basis under this ruling.
- Do not submit unsolicited evidence. Unless USILAW advises otherwise, do not send additional materials into pending files proactively. USCIS must resume adjudication; unsolicited submissions in most cases will not be associated with the correct file.
- Monitor for First Circuit and USCIS developments. USILAW will issue an immediate update if the government files for an emergency stay, if the First Circuit acts, or if USCIS issues operational guidance on resuming adjudications under the vacated policies. Do not communicate this ruling to affected employees as final relief until further guidance issues.
- Assess separately: consular processing and the 75-country DOS pause. This ruling does not apply to the State Department’s separate January 21, 2026 pause on immigrant visa issuances at U.S. consulates for nationals of 75 specified countries (subject to CLINIC v. Rubio). Employees in consular processing pipelines require separate analysis.
What to Watch
| Government Appeal / Emergency Stay | The government is expected to appeal to the First Circuit and may seek an emergency administrative stay. A stay would reinstate all four vacated policies pending review. |
| USCIS Operational Guidance | USCIS has not yet issued guidance on how it will resume adjudication of frozen cases. Until it does, employers and counsel should not assume the agency has updated its systems or processing queues. |
| CLINIC v. Rubio (N.D. Cal.) | A parallel challenge to the State Department’s 75-country consular processing pause is proceeding separately. Today’s ruling does not resolve that case. |
| Congressional Response | Congress could attempt to codify nationality-based restrictions by statute. Any statutory measure would present a different legal question than the one decided in Dorcas. No such legislation is known to be imminent. |
About This Alert
This alert was prepared by USILAW based on Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, (D.R.I. June 5, 2026). It is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Immigration law is highly fact specific. Please contact your USILAW attorney regarding the application of this guidance to your organization’s specific circumstances.
Questions? Contact your USILAW attorney directly or reach us at: