← Insights

Federal Court Vacates USCIS Holds That Froze Green Card, Asylum, Work Permit, and Citizenship Cases

For more than six months, many immigrants watched their cases sit frozen — green cards, asylum applications, work permits, and citizenship cases stuck with no decision — not because of anything they did, but because of the country they were born in. On June 5, 2026, a federal court ordered those freezes set aside.

This is a significant development. Here is a plain-English look at what the court actually decided — and, just as important, what it does not change.

What happened

In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.) ruled on a challenge brought by a coalition of nonprofits and unions representing immigrants from a group of countries affected by recent travel-ban proclamations. The plaintiffs argued that USCIS had unlawfully paused and reworked the way it handles their applications. The court agreed, and vacated four USCIS policies.

The four policies the court set aside

• The Benefits Hold Policy — an indefinite pause on adjudicating benefit requests for individuals from 39 "Travel Ban" countries, which kept applicants from receiving final decisions on asylum, work permits, green cards, and citizenship.
• The Global Asylum Hold Policy — a hold on all asylum and withholding-of-removal applications, regardless of the applicant's country of origin.
• The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy — a re-review of already-approved applications for nationals of those countries who entered the U.S. on or after January 20, 2021.
• The Country-Specific Factors Policy — a change requiring USCIS officers to treat an applicant's country as a significant negative factor when deciding their case.

Why the court ruled the policies unlawful

The court's decision rested on the Administrative Procedure Act — the law governing how federal agencies must act — on two independent grounds:

1. The policies were "contrary to law." USCIS relied on a statute, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), as its authority. That provision lets the President suspend the entry of people from abroad. The court held that it does not give USCIS authority to freeze the adjudication of applications for people who are already lawfully in the United States. In short, the agency claimed a power it did not have.

2. The policies were "arbitrary and capricious." The court found that USCIS failed to give a reasoned explanation for the changes, failed to account for the reliance interests of applicants who had already filed and paid fees, and offered "national security" justifications the court concluded were pretextual — pointing to contemporaneous statements and internal inconsistencies (for example, exempting certain athletes and physicians) as evidence the stated reasons were "contrived."

What the court ordered

• Vacatur. The court set aside all four policies in their entirety. Because vacating a policy voids the policy itself, the court described this as providing nationwide relief.
• A declaratory judgment that the policies are unlawful.
• No permanent injunction. The court declined to issue one — not because the plaintiffs lost, but because it concluded that vacatur and the declaratory judgment already give complete relief, and an injunction is a "drastic and extraordinary remedy" that wasn't necessary here.
• The constitutional claims were left for another day. The plaintiffs also raised Fifth Amendment due-process and equal-protection claims. Because the court resolved the case on the APA, it declined to decide those questions and denied the government's motion to dismiss them without prejudice.

What this means — and what it does not

For people whose asylum, adjustment of status, employment authorization, or naturalization cases were caught in these holds, the court has removed the policies that were freezing them. As a legal matter, that sets aside the basis USCIS had been using to withhold decisions.

But it is important to be measured about what a ruling like this does and does not do:

• It is a district court decision dated June 5, 2026. The government may appeal, and could ask a higher court to pause the ruling while an appeal is considered. Its practical effect could change.
• It does not change eligibility rules, and it does not guarantee any particular outcome in any individual case.
• How and how quickly USCIS resumes adjudications is its own question.

In other words: this is an important and favorable development for many affected applicants, not a final, permanent resolution — and it does not replace case-specific legal guidance.

Practical, general steps

This is general information, not advice for your situation, but as sensible practice while this develops:

• Keep your case well-documented and make sure USCIS has your current address.
• Watch your case status and any official USCIS updates.
• Don't make major decisions — traveling, withdrawing, or refiling — based on a headline. Whether and how this ruling affects your specific case is a conversation for an attorney.

The bottom line

A federal court has ordered USCIS to stop applying these country-based holds and re-review practices. If your case was frozen by one of them, this matters. What it means for your case — and how it may play out if the government appeals — is exactly the kind of question worth reviewing with counsel.

Request a Consultation

This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Court decisions can be appealed or stayed, and immigration outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. Consult a qualified immigration attorney before making decisions about your case, filing, or travel. This website is attorney advertising.