Breaking: Federal Court Strikes Down USCIS Adjudication Pause for Travel Ban Countries

Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-00132 (D.R.I. June 5, 2026)

In a sweeping decision issued right now, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated the USCIS insurance policies which have frozen immigration advantages for nationals of thirty-nine international locations since late final 12 months. The court docket held that each one 4 challenged insurance policies are illegal below the Administrative Procedure Act, declared them invalid, and set them apart.

This is a major ruling. Unlike the sooner preliminary injunction wins in different districts, which have usually restricted aid to the named plaintiffs in these instances, the treatment right here is vacatur of the underlying insurance policies themselves. That carries far broader impact.

To be clear, this isn’t a Reddy Neumann Brown PC case. The litigation was introduced by a coalition of immigrant service organizations and labor unions, together with the Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, the Refugee Dream Center, SEIU, the UAW, African Communities Together, the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, the Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, and American Gateways. We are overlaying it due to its direct impression on employment-based and family-based candidates throughout the nation.

What was struck down

The court docket vacated 4 distinct USCIS insurance policies, which it referred to collectively because the Challenged Policies:

1. The Benefits Hold Policy. This positioned an indefinite maintain on adjudication of all immigration profit requests, together with adjustment of standing, employment authorization, and naturalization, filed by people from the thirty-nine Travel Ban Countries.
2. The Global Asylum Hold Policy. This halted adjudication of all asylum and withholding of removing functions, whatever the applicant’s nation of origin.
3. The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy. This required USCIS to re-review and rethink already authorized profit requests for any particular person from a Travel Ban Country who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021.
4. The Country-Specific Factors Policy. This up to date the USCIS Policy Manual to direct adjudicators to deal with country-specific elements from the journey ban as a major detrimental issue when weighing discretion in profit adjudications.

The court docket denied the plaintiffs’ request for a everlasting injunction, discovering vacatur adequate, and denied the federal government’s movement to dismiss the constitutional claims with out prejudice.

How we obtained right here

The insurance policies hint again to Executive Order 14161 and the administration’s revived journey ban. President Trump issued Proclamation 10949 in June 2025, limiting entry for nationals of 19 international locations, after which expanded the listing to thirty-nine international locations by Proclamation 10998 in December 2025.

USCIS adopted with two coverage memoranda. The December 2, 2025 memorandum (PM-602-0192) imposed the preliminary adjudication maintain tied to the nineteen-country listing and positioned a nationwide maintain on asylum functions. The January 1, 2026 memorandum (PM-602-0194) expanded the maintain to cowl all thirty-nine Travel Ban Countries. The company described the holds as a nationwide safety and vetting measure and stated they might stay in place till lifted by a superseding directive from the USCIS Director.

The sensible end result was that candidates who had filed correctly, paid their charges, accomplished biometrics, and attended interviews had been left ready for months with no resolution, and in lots of instances misplaced work authorization, jobs, and authorized standing whereas their instances sat frozen.

Why the court docket dominated towards the federal government

The court docket grounded its resolution solely within the APA and declined to achieve the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment due course of and equal safety claims, invoking the doctrine of constitutional avoidance.

On the deserves, the court docket discovered that USCIS claimed statutory and regulatory authority it doesn’t possess, failed to supply the reasoned rationalization the regulation requires, ignored the reliance pursuits of candidates, and justified the insurance policies with nationwide safety considerations that the court docket characterised as pretextual. The court docket pointed to the necessary statutory and regulatory language governing asylum and withholding adjudications, noting that USCIS isn’t free to adjudicate some instances whereas indefinitely holding a subset of others based mostly on nation of beginning. In a pointed passage, the court docket wrote that the maintain couldn’t be attributed to something the affected people did mistaken and arose solely by the happenstance of their beginning.

The court docket additionally relied on public statements by the President and the previous DHS Secretary as probative proof that the acknowledged nationwide safety rationale masked impermissible animus, drawing on the current line of TPS termination instances.

What this implies for the federal government’s choices

The resolution leaves the administration with a number of life like paths ahead, and immigration practitioners ought to anticipate motion rapidly:

• Appeal to the First Circuit. This is the most definitely near-term step. DHS has already signaled in associated litigation that it views these insurance policies as core nationwide safety features, and an attraction of a nationwide vacatur is the pure response.
• Motion to remain pending attraction. The authorities might ask the district court docket or the First Circuit to remain the vacatur so the holds can stay in impact whereas the attraction proceeds. Whether a keep is granted will form what occurs to pending instances within the interim.
• Attempt to re-promulgate the coverage. The court docket’s APA evaluation leaves open the chance that USCIS may strive once more with a extra developed administrative document, a reasoned rationalization, consideration to reliance pursuits, and probably notice-and-comment rulemaking. A repackaged coverage constructed on the identical pretext findings would face an uphill battle, however the company has proven willingness to revise and re-issue.
• Narrow or wind down the coverage. USCIS had already begun selectively lifting holds, together with for asylum candidates from so-called non high-risk international locations in its March 30, 2026 alert. The company may lean right into a narrower, case-by-case framing quite than a categorical maintain.

There can also be a backdrop of conflicting and overlapping litigation. Dozens of instances difficult the advantages holds are pending throughout federal district courts, together with Doe v. Trump within the District of Massachusetts, and a number of other have produced preliminary aid restricted to particular person plaintiffs. A nationwide vacatur out of Rhode Island modifications the panorama, however circuit splits and competing rulings stay an actual chance.

The way forward for this

For now, the 4 challenged insurance policies are vacated and put aside. That is the headline.

We anticipate DHS to attraction and really probably to hunt a keep. Until the mud settles, the standing of pending instances for affected candidates may shift once more, probably greater than as soon as. We shall be watching carefully for the federal government’s subsequent submitting, any keep ruling, and any new USCIS steering, and we are going to replace as extra data turns into out there.

If you or your staff have a profit request that has been held up below these insurance policies, this ruling might open a path to adjudication. Reach out to our workforce to debate how right now’s resolution impacts your particular matter.

By: Steven Brown

Steven A. Brown is a Partner at Reddy Neumann Brown PC, the place he leads the agency’s Litigation Team, addressing delays and denials of immigration advantages, FOIA requests, and coverage and regulatory challenges. Steven is devoted to delivering sensible and efficient options for shoppers going through unreasonably delayed or unlawfully withheld immigration advantages, together with Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), advance parole, inexperienced playing cards, 221(g) selections, EB-5 delays, and different immigration-related issues. His litigation efforts had been instrumental in Shergill, et al. v. Mayorkas, a landmark case that led to the U.S. authorities recognizing that below the INA, L-2 and E visa spouses are licensed to work incident to their standing, eliminating the necessity for separate EAD functions. This case has remodeled work authorization for 1000’s of households throughout the United States.