In a significant victory for immigrants and employers, a federal district court has struck down a series of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies that had effectively frozen the adjudication of immigration benefits for nationals of 39 countries subject to the Trump administration’s travel restrictions. The June 5, 2026 decision restores processing of thousands of applications that had been placed in indefinite limbo and reaffirms important limits on USCIS’s authority under federal law.

Background: The USCIS Adjudication Pause

Beginning in late 2025, USCIS implemented several internal policies that dramatically changed how it handled applications filed by nationals of 39 designated countries. Rather than simply conducting additional security screening, the agency paused final decisions on a wide range of immigration benefits, including adjustment of status (Form I-485), employment authorization (Form I-765), naturalization (Form N-400), asylum-related applications, and other discretionary immigration benefits. In some cases, USCIS also initiated re-reviews of previously approved applications.

The agency justified these measures as part of expanded national security vetting following the administration’s broader travel ban policies. However, critics argued that the policies created indefinite delays, prevented applicants from obtaining lawful status and work authorization, and penalized individuals based primarily on their nationality rather than the merits of their cases.

The Court’s Decision

In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island concluded that USCIS exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court vacated four agency policies in their entirety:

• The policy pausing adjudication of immigration benefit requests for nationals of the affected countries;
• The global asylum adjudication hold;
• The policy requiring comprehensive re-review of certain previously approved benefits; and
• The policy directing officers to treat an applicant’s nationality as a significant negative discretionary factor.

Unlike earlier injunctions that protected only the named plaintiffs, the court vacated the policies themselves. As a result, the ruling has nationwide effect unless it is stayed or reversed on appeal. USCIS is therefore expected to resume adjudicating pending applications that had been frozen under these policies.

What the Decision Means

For affected applicants, the ruling represents an important step toward restoring access to legal immigration benefits. Individuals whose adjustment of status applications, work permits, naturalization applications, or other benefit requests were delayed solely because they are nationals of one of the designated countries should now see their cases move forward through the normal adjudication process. Country of nationality also should no longer be treated as a negative discretionary factor during USCIS decision-making.

Employers may also benefit from the decision, particularly those with employees whose employment authorization renewals or permanent residence applications had stalled under the adjudication pause.

The Bigger Picture

While this decision is a major development, it does not eliminate all immigration restrictions affecting these countries. The ruling applies only to USCIS’s internal adjudication policies. Other measures—including the State Department’s policies governing visa issuance abroad and the underlying travel restrictions themselves—remain in place unless separately challenged or rescinded.

Additionally, the federal government may appeal the decision or seek a stay while the appeal is pending. Until then, however, the court’s order remains in effect, and USCIS should resume processing cases that had previously been subject to the nationwide pause.

For immigrants and employers alike, the ruling reinforces an important principle: while the government has broad authority to conduct security screening, it must exercise that authority within the limits established by Congress and cannot indefinitely suspend immigration benefits through internal agency policy alone.