On June 5, 2026, a federal court in Rhode Island ruled that several United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) policies that placed immigration benefit applications on hold for individuals from designated travel ban countries were unlawful. The decision provides relief to foreign nationals whose applications for immigration benefits had been delayed or effectively frozen because of their country of origin.
The case, Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, et al v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services was brought by a coalition of nonprofit organizations and unions challenging several USCIS policies that affected individuals from thirty nine countries designated as high risk by the government and subject to the administration’s travel restrictions. These policies included placing holds on certain immigration benefit requests, pausing many asylum adjudications, requiring additional review of certain previously approved applications, and changes to USCIS guidance directing officers to treat country-specific factors as significant negative factors in adjudications. On June 12, 2026, USCIS announced that although the agency “strongly disagrees with the Court’s order” it would comply with the terms pending possible further judicial review. For now, USCIS will continue adjudicate applications and petitions seeking benefits such as asylum, employment authorization, lawful permanent residence (Green Cards), or naturalization (U.S. citizenship) from citizens of the affected countries.
By way of background, the Trump administration had previously announced travel restrictions affecting nationals of several countries and later expanded those restrictions to additional countries. Those restrictions limited entry into the US for some individuals from designated countries, and they included exceptions in certain situations. Within these exceptions were dual nationals who are traveling on a passport issued by a country that is not subject to the restrictions. In other words, the travel ban does not necessarily apply simply because a person was born in, or is also a national of, a restricted country, if they are presenting a passport from a non-restricted country and otherwise qualify for the exception. Separate from the travel restrictions, USCIS announced that it would pause processing of several types of immigration applications for individuals born in the restricted countries while the agency conducted additional security reviews regardless of whether they held passports from non-restricted countries. These pauses impacted applications such as asylum, green card, and citizenship cases.
The Rhode Island decision is significant because it addresses what USCIS can and cannot do with applications filed by people who are already in the United States and who are following the legal process. In practical terms, the court found that USCIS could not place applicants into an indefinite processing limbo simply because they were from one of the designated countries. The court emphasized that many affected applicants had already completed the required steps in the immigration process, including filing applications, paying required fees, submitting biometrics, and attending interviews when required, and otherwise complied with the process established by Congress and USCIS regulations. The court declared four USCIS policies unlawful and vacated them. Those policies were the Benefits Hold Policy, which paused certain immigration benefits applications ; The Global Asylum Hold Policy, which broadly paused asylum decisions; The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, which required additional review of certain previously approved applications; and The Country-Specific Factors Policy, which directed officers to consider nationality based factors more heavily in certain conditions. Essentially, the court set aside policies that had stopped or delayed USCIS decisions for certain applicants from travel ban countries, paused asylum adjudications more broadly, required re-review of certain already approved benefits, and allowed country-specific factors to weigh heavily against applicants in discretionary decisions.
The court based its decision primarily on the Administrative Procedure Act commonly known as the APA. The APA is the federal law that governs how government agencies make and implement policies. In simple terms, the APA requires agencies such as USCIS to follow the law, stay within the authority granted by Congress, explain significant policy changes, and make decisions based on reasonable and consistent standards. In this case, the court concluded that USCIS did not meet those requirements. According to the ruling, USCIS exceeded its legal authority, failed to adequately explain its actions, did not properly consider the impact on individuals who had relied on existing policies, and offered reasons for its actions that the court found unconvincing.
Importantly, the decision does not appear to invalidate the travel ban itself. The restrictions affecting visa issuance and entry into the United States remain a separate legal issue. Instead, the decision addresses how USCIS processes applications filed by individuals who are already seeking immigration benefits through the US immigration system. For affected applicants, the practical significance is that USCIS may no longer rely on the invalidated policies to indefinitely hold applications without making decisions simply because of country of origin.
Although the court did not issue a separate permanent injunction, it did vacate the challenged USCIS policies, meaning the policies are no longer in effect and generally cannot be enforced unless a higher court temporarily pauses the ruling or ultimately reverses it on appeal. The government may seek further review, and additional litigation is possible. For now, this is a favorable ruling for foreign nationals whose cases were delayed because of these USCIS processing holds. The ruling reinforces an important principle: even when the federal government invokes national security or immigration enforcement concerns, federal agencies must still follow the law, stay within the authority granted by Congress, and make individualized decisions based on legal standards. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as additional information becomes available.