Last week, we discussed two immigration-related pauses that are currently being challenged in federal court.  One was the USCIS hold on benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 countries affected by the administration’s travel restrictions and related screening directives. The other was the State Department freeze on immigrant visa processing abroad. At the time, relief was developing case by case, and courts had mostly ordered USCIS to keep individual plaintiffs’ cases moving rather than striking down the policy itself.

What the Court Ruled

On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled against the government in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, et al. v. USCIS, et al., No. 26-cv-132-JJM-PAS. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. granted summary judgment in part for the plaintiffs and held the USCIS adjudication freeze unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The court did not just block the policy for the people who sued. It vacated the underlying USCIS policies in full. The decision struck down four related policies by name:

1. The Benefits Hold Policy, which paused adjudication of benefit requests for nationals of the affected countries.
2. The Global Asylum Hold Policy, which paused asylum and withholding adjudications regardless of nationality.
3. The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, which subjected already-approved benefits to fresh scrutiny for certain travel-ban-country nationals.
4. The Country-Specific Factors Policy, which directed officers to weigh nationality as a significant negative factor in discretionary decisions.

The court found that USCIS claimed statutory and regulatory authority it does not have, failed to give the reasoned explanations the law requires, ignored the reliance interests of applicants who had followed every step of the process, and leaned on national-security justifications that did not hold up. In legal terms, the policies were contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The court also issued a declaratory judgment that the policies are unlawful. It declined to add a permanent injunction, reasoning that vacatur already does the work.

The Impact of this Decision

The earlier orders we wrote about, including the preliminary relief out of Massachusetts, helped the specific people named in those cases. They did not undo the policy.

This ruling is different. Vacatur sets the policies aside themselves, not just their application to a handful of plaintiffs. Importantly, the court relied on APA vacatur rather than a nationwide injunction. In practical terms, the challenged policies were set aside and declared unlawful, though the scope and durability of that remedy may become an issue on appeal. The court was explicit that voiding the policies provides relief that reaches beyond the named plaintiffs. For applicants who watched their cases stall for months based on nothing but their country of birth, that is a meaningful shift.

What It Does Not Change

This decision only addresses the USCIS adjudication freeze and applies strictly to cases pending before USCIS. It does not resolve the separate State Department freeze on immigrant visa processing at consulates abroad. That policy is being challenged in its own lawsuit, CLINIC v. Rubio, and remains a distinct legal fight with its own timeline. If your case is pending at a U.S. consulate rather than with USCIS inside the United States, this ruling does not directly apply to you.

Potential Appeals and Ongoing Uncertainty

Because this is a district court decision, further litigation remains possible. The government may seek a stay of the ruling or pursue an appeal, and USCIS has not yet issued guidance regarding how it will reopen or reprocess applications that were previously placed on hold. As a result, the timing of any movement in delayed cases will depend largely on the agency’s implementation of the decision and whether a higher court grants relief that affects the ruling’s operation.

What This Means If Your Case Was Paused

If your application was delayed under one of the challenged USCIS policies, the court concluded that those policies were unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.  USCIS has not yet announced how it will implement the ruling. The agency may resume adjudications, issue new guidance, seek a stay pending appeal, or pursue appellate review. Applicants should continue monitoring case status updates and responding promptly to any USCIS requests.  s.

The landscape is still shifting. The right strategy depends on the type of application you filed, how long it has been delayed, and whether your case sits with USCIS or a consulate abroad.While the ruling is significant, it does not automatically resolve every delayed case. Individual circumstances still matter. 

You may want to speak with an immigration attorney if:

• Your USCIS case has been pending unusually long.
• You received notice that your case was undergoing additional review.
• You are from one of the affected countries and have seen no movement on your application.
• Your case remains stalled despite this ruling.

If your application was affected by either pause, contact EO Immigration at info@eoimmigration.com or call (305) 391-2105 to talk through your options.