Federal Court Vacates USCIS Benefits Hold for 39 Countries: Green Cards & EADs Unfrozen (June 2026)

On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a landmark 135-page ruling in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The decision vacated four USCIS internal policy memos that had effectively frozen immigration benefit adjudications for applicants from nearly 40 countries — leaving thousands of green card applicants, EAD holders, and nonimmigrant visa beneficiaries in legal limbo for months.

The ruling represents one of the most sweeping federal court rebukes of USCIS adjudication practices in recent memory, covering adjustment of status (Form I-485), employment authorization documents (Form I-765), naturalization (Form N-400), and nonimmigrant petitions (Form I-129). Here is everything affected applicants and employers need to know.

Background: What Were the USCIS Policies That Were Challenged?

Beginning in early 2025, USCIS implemented a series of internal policy memos that halted the processing of benefit requests for foreign nationals from countries the administration had designated as “high risk” under the travel ban framework. Four specific policies were challenged in the Dorcas lawsuit:

Together, these four policies created a near-total processing shutdown for tens of thousands of pending applications. Affected individuals included H-1B and L-1 workers, green card applicants who had waited years to file, DACA-adjacent EAD holders, and naturalization applicants who had lived in the U.S. for decades.

What the Court Ruled in Dorcas v. USCIS

Chief Judge McConnell found that all four challenged policies violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) on multiple grounds:

1. Contrary to Law: The court found that USCIS lacks statutory authority to impose a blanket freeze on adjudications by nationality. Immigration statutes require USCIS to adjudicate benefit applications in good faith and do not authorize wholesale processing moratoriums based solely on an applicant’s country of origin.

2. Arbitrary and Capricious: The court found that USCIS failed to provide a reasoned explanation for enacting the policies, did not account for the substantial reliance interests of applicants who had already paid fees and waited years, and offered pretextual justifications. The 135-page opinion is a detailed rejection of the agency’s reasoning.

3. Relief Granted: The court vacated and set aside all four policies, which is the broadest form of APA relief available — it wipes the policies off the books entirely rather than merely enjoining their enforcement in one district.

Which 39 Countries Were Affected by the Benefits Hold?

The Benefits Hold Policy applied to nationals of countries designated as “high risk” under the administration’s travel ban executive orders. The full list includes, but is not limited to:

Note: The full list of 39 designated “high risk” countries is subject to change based on executive orders. Applicants from these countries should verify their country’s current status with an immigration attorney.

Practical Impact: What Applications May Now Move Forward?

With the court’s vacatur, the following categories of benefit applications — previously frozen for nationals of the 39 affected countries — should be eligible for adjudication:

What Happens Next? Appeal and Stay Risks

Update (July 15, 2026): The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied the government’s motion to stay its ruling pending appeal. The four vacated USCIS policies — including the Global Asylum Hold and the 39-country Benefits Hold — remain vacated and not in effect. USCIS continues adjudicating benefit requests for applicants from the previously affected countries while the government’s appeal proceeds at the First Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 26-1703). Applicants should continue monitoring their case status, since a future ruling

The government has several options following the district court’s ruling, and applicants should not assume immediate processing. Here is what to watch for:

Government Appeal: The Department of Justice may file a notice of appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. An appeal does not automatically stay the district court’s order, but the government can simultaneously file a motion to stay the court’s ruling pending appeal.

Emergency Stay Motion: If the government believes the ruling will cause “irreparable harm” to its enforcement objectives, it can seek an emergency stay from either the district court or the First Circuit. If a stay is granted, the vacatur would be suspended and the hold policies could resume while the appeal is litigated.

USCIS Implementation: Even without a stay, USCIS must now decide how to implement the order — including how to prioritize the backlog of previously frozen cases. The agency has not yet issued public guidance on its implementation plan.

Practical timeline: Attorneys are advising clients to expect a period of uncertainty lasting two to six weeks before USCIS visibly resumes adjudications on affected cases, even in the absence of a stay.

What Employers Should Do Right Now

Employers with sponsored employees from the 39 affected countries should take the following steps immediately:

1. Audit pending petitions: Identify all pending I-129, I-485, I-765, and I-131 cases filed for affected nationals. Cross-reference with USCIS case status online to confirm

2. Check work authorization expirations: If an employee’s EAD or I-94 is approaching expiration and renewal was frozen, consult immediately with immigration counsel to assess options including cap-gap protection or alternative status.

3. Do not request withdrawals: Do not withdraw pending petitions based on the assumption they were denied. Many applications were simply never adjudicated — and may now receive decisions.

4. Monitor for government appeal: Subscribe to USCIS alerts and follow first-hand reporting from immigration law firms. If a stay is granted, employers will need updated contingency plans.

Related Articles

For more on US immigration topics affected by the Dorcas ruling:

• Adjustment of Status 2026: New USCIS Rules — Who Must Consular Process
• USCIS Proposes Restricting Work Permits for Parolees & DACA Recipients: EAD Rule 2026
• H-1B Visa Stamping 2026: Appointment Delays & Social Media Vetting
• July 2026 Visa Bulletin Predictions: EB-2 India May Retrogress Further