Court Rejects USCIS Holds on Immigration Benefits for Nationals of Travel-Ban Countries
The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island found that US Citizenship & Immigration Services unlawfully froze benefit adjudications and improperly used nationality as a negative discretionary factor for applicants from designated countries.
Introduction
Today, June 05, 2026, the federal district court in Rhode Island ruled against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a challenge to immigration policies implemented after President Trump’s 2025 travel-ban proclamations.
The court held that USCIS unlawfully froze immigration benefit adjudications for people from designated countries and exceeded its legal authority under immigration laws and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court declared the challenged policies unlawful.
Background: What were these policies?
In 2025, President Trump issued travel-ban proclamations restricting or limiting the entry of nationals from countries that the administration identified as presenting “screening, vetting, information-sharing, overstay, fraud, or national-security concerns.” USCIS then issued several policy documents applying those concerns to domestic immigration adjudications.
These policies affected both individuals abroad, and individuals already in the United States with pending applications. For many applicants, the practical result was that their cases could not receive a final approval, denial, or dismissal.
USCIS adopted four major policies that became the focus of litigation:
1. Global Asylum Hold Policy
On December 02, 2025, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192, titled “Hold and Review of all Pending Asylum Applications and all USCIS Benefit Applications Filed by Aliens from High-Risk Countries.” The memorandum directed USCIS personnel to:
Place a hold on all Form I-589, Applications for Asylum & Withholding of Removal, regardless of the applicant’s country of nationality, pending a comprehensive review.
2. Benefits Hold Policy
USCIS later, on January 01, 2026, issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194, titled “Hold and Review of USCIS Benefit Applications Filed by Aliens from Additional High-Risk Countries.” This memorandum extended the hold to benefit applications filed by or for individuals from additional countries listed in Presidential Proclamation 10998.
USCIS defined a “hold” as allowing a case to proceed through processing up to final adjudication, but preventing issuance of the final decision. In other words, an application could move internally but could not be approved, denied, or dismissed while the hold remained in place.
The benefits affected included, among others, applications related to:
Adjustment of status, including green card applications;
Employment authorization;
Naturalization-related benefits;
Travel documents and parole-related requests;
Other USCIS benefit requests, subject to listed exceptions.
3. Comprehensive Re-Review Policy
PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 also required USCIS to conduct a comprehensive re-review of certain previously approved benefit requests for individuals from listed countries.
PM-602-0192 applied this re-review to individuals from countries listed in Presidential Proclamation 10949 who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021.
PM-602-0194 extended re-review obligations to approved benefit requests implicated by Presidential Proclamation 10998 that were approved on or after January 20, 2021.
The re-review process contemplated possible interviews, re-interviews, further security screening, and referral to law enforcement where appropriate.
4.Country-Specific Factors Policy
On November 27, 2025, USCIS also issued Policy Alert PA-2025-26, titled “Impact of INA 212(f) on USCIS’ Adjudication of Discretionary Benefits.” This policy updated the USCIS Policy Manual to instruct officers to consider relevant country-specific facts and circumstances, including those identified in the travel-ban proclamations, as significant negative factors in discretionary benefit adjudications.
Countries Impacted
The policies ultimately applied to countries listed in the 2025 travel-ban proclamations.
Countries Subject to Full Restrictions
Afghanistan; Burma / Myanmar; Burkina Faso; Chad; Republic of the Congo; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Haiti; Iran; Laos; Libya; Mali; Niger; Sierra Leone; Somalia; South Sudan; Sudan; Syria; Yemen.
The full-restriction category also included individuals attempting to travel on Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed travel documents.
Countries Subject to Partial Restrictions or Limitations
Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Benin; Burundi; Côte d’Ivoire; Cuba; Dominica; Gabon; The Gambia; Malawi; Mauritania; Nigeria; Senegal; Tanzania; Togo; Tonga; Turkmenistan; Venezuela; Zambia; Zimbabwe
Together, these categories covered 39 countries, plus individuals traveling on Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed travel documents.
Why the Lawsuit Was Filed
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging these policies included nonprofit organizations representing immigrants affected by the policies. They challenged USCIS’s actions, arguing that the agency had exceeded its authority, acted contrary to immigration statutes and regulations, failed to provide a reasoned explanation, failed to consider applicants’ reliance interests, and relied on pretextual national-security justifications.
Key Findings by the court
The court found serious legal problems with USCIS’s approach. In substance, the court concluded that USCIS had placed applicants from designated countries into legal limbo by preventing final decisions on pending benefit applications.
The court highlighted that many affected applicants had done exactly what the immigration system requires. The court wrote that this case was “a perfect example of immigrants” who had tried to “follow the law” and “do things the right way.”
The court explained that applicants had “filed the appropriate paperwork, paid the required filing fees, submitted to the requested biometrics collections, and attended the necessary in-person interviews.” Yet despite following the process, they remained stuck because USCIS refused to issue final decisions.
The court held that the four challenged policies were unlawful and ordered them vacated and set aside:
Practical Impact
If the decision remains in effect, USCIS may no longer use the vacated policies to categorically hold or freeze immigration benefit applications based on the applicant’s country of origin or nationality.
For affected applicants, the ruling may mean:
USCIS should resume ordinary adjudication of applications;
Applicants from the designated countries should no longer be categorically barred from final decisions;
USCIS cannot rely on the policies to treat country of origin as a significant negative factor;
Previously stalled asylum, work permit, green card, and naturalization applications may begin moving again; and
This ruling does not mean every affected application will be approved. It means USCIS cannot use the challenged policies to categorically stop deciding cases or impose nationality-based negative treatment without lawful authority.
Need Help with Your Immigration Case?
At Big Sky Immigration, we are committed to serving immigrant communities across Montana, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. Our goal is to ensure that individuals and families have access to reliable information, meaningful legal support, and a trusted advocate during their complex immigration process.
If you have questions about this recent court ruling or believe your immigration case may have been affected by these policies, we encourage you to contact our office to schedule a free consultation. We are available to discuss your situation, answer your questions, and help you understand what this decision may mean for your case.
For further reading please see:
Dorcas Int’l Inst. of Rhode Island v. USCIS, D.R.I., No. 1:26-cv-00132
https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/policy-memoranda
https://uscis-pause-tracker.com/
https://litigationtracker.justiceactioncenter.org/
This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law and agency policy can change quickly, and affected individuals should consult a qualified immigration attorney about their specific circumstances.