Federal Court Vacates USCIS Benefits Hold for 39 Countries

What Happened

On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a [135-page ruling](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28199744-dorcasopn060526/) in *Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS* (No. [1:26-cv-00132](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72369535/)) vacating four USCIS policies that had frozen immigration benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 countries designated under the expanded travel ban.

The court used vacatur, which voids the policies themselves, rather than a preliminary injunction. That distinction matters. Earlier rulings in Massachusetts and Maryland protected only named plaintiffs, ranging from 83 to 266 individuals. Vacatur provides nationwide relief because the policies are set aside for everyone, not just for the parties in the lawsuit.

The case was filed on March 5, 2026, by a coalition including Dorcas International Institute, the Refugee Dream Center, SEIU, UAW, African Communities Together, and others, represented by [Democracy Forward](https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/federal-court-vacates-trump-vance-administration-policies-targeting-immigrants-based-on-country-of-origin/) and Muslim Advocates. It moved on an expedited briefing schedule, with oral argument on May 21 and the decision issued just 15 days later.

The Four Policies the Court Struck Down

The ruling vacated four USCIS policies under the Administrative Procedure Act. Together, they had layered delays and added discretion risks onto pending applications:

• Benefits Hold (PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194): Issued December 2, 2025, and expanded January 1, 2026, these memos directed USCIS officers to indefinitely freeze all benefit adjudications — including I-485 adjustment of status, I-765 employment authorization, I-131 advance parole, and I-140 immigrant petitions — for nationals of the 39 travel ban countries. No final approvals, denials, or dismissals were permitted.
• Global Asylum Hold: Also established in PM-602-0192, this policy halted all affirmative asylum and withholding-of-removal adjudications nationwide, regardless of the applicant’s nationality.
• Comprehensive Re-Review Policy: PM-602-0194 required USCIS to reopen and re-adjudicate previously approved benefits for travel ban country nationals who had entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021 — threatening already-granted green cards, work permits, and other immigration status.
• Country-Specific Factors Policy (PA-2025-26): A November 2025 Policy Manual update instructing adjudicators to treat an applicant’s travel ban country nationality as a “significant negative factor” in all discretionary benefit decisions, including adjustment of status.

Why the Court Found the Policies Unlawful

The court grounded its decision entirely in the Administrative Procedure Act, finding the policies both “contrary to law” under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) and “arbitrary and capricious” under § 706(2)(A). It did not reach the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims.

On statutory authority, the court held that presidential proclamations under INA § 212(f) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) authorize entry suspensions at the border. They do not authorize USCIS to stop domestic benefit adjudications for people already lawfully present in the United States. The court also found violations of the mandatory asylum timeline in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), naturalization decision deadlines in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1446 and 1447, and the nationality-based nondiscrimination rule in 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).

On pretext, the court applied *Department of Commerce v. New York*, the 2019 census case, and found “a significant mismatch between the decision the agency made and the rationale it provided.” The court credited public statements by executive officials as evidence of “ethnic hostility and prejudice” and “bad faith and impermissible animus.”

One of the opinion's sharpest passages concerned USCIS exceptions for athletes competing in the 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2028 Summer Olympics. The court treated those carveouts as evidence that the stated national security rationale was not being applied consistently.

Who’s Affected

The Benefits Hold applied to nationals of [39 countries designated under Presidential Proclamation 10998](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/19/2025-23570/restricting-and-limiting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states) (December 16, 2025), plus individuals traveling on Palestinian Authority-issued documents. The countries fall into two tiers for entry purposes, but the USCIS benefits freeze applied across the list:

• Full entry ban (19 countries): Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
• Partial entry restrictions (20 countries): Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Impact on Employment-Based Applicants

For employment-based visa holders from the 39 listed countries, the Benefits Hold froze the entire green card pipeline. Affected application types included I-485 adjustment of status (all EB categories), I-765 employment authorization documents, I-131 advance parole, and downstream processing of approved I-140 immigrant petitions. Premium processing remained available for I-140 petitions, but an approved I-140 could not unblock the frozen I-485.

Among the 39 countries, Nigeria appears to have the largest population of employment-based applicants, particularly H-1B holders pursuing green cards in technology, healthcare, and academia. Iranian nationals in STEM fields and Venezuelan professionals also appear to be material affected cohorts. The hold had been in effect since December 2025 for nationals of the original 19 countries and since January 2026 for the expanded list, leaving some applicants in limbo for more than six months.

The total USCIS pending caseload exceeds [11.6 million applications](https://immigrationfleet.com/articles/uscis-processing-backlog-hits-11-6-million-in-2026-how-application-delays-are-putting-immigrants-at-deportation-risk/) as of 2026. Precise figures for employment-based applicants from the 39 countries specifically are not publicly available. However, because India and China — which account for the majority of EB backlogs — are not on the list, the EB impact is concentrated among applicants from Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela, and other listed countries rather than spread across the entire EB pipeline.

What Attorneys Should Know

The *Dorcas* ruling is the strongest legal authority so far against the Benefits Hold. Prior decisions — *Saghafi v. Edlow* (D. Md., April 24, 2026), *Akmurat v. Trump* (D. Mass., April 30, 2026), and *Doe v. Trump* (D. Mass., May 7, 2026) — produced preliminary injunctions limited to named plaintiffs (83, approximately 200, and 266 individuals respectively). The *Dorcas* vacatur eliminates the underlying policies for affected individuals nationwide.

The APA analysis carries implications beyond this case. The court’s holding that INA § 212(f) entry-suspension authority does not extend to domestic benefit adjudications could inform challenges to other USCIS policies that cite travel ban proclamations as authority. The pretext finding, grounded in *Department of Commerce v. New York*, sets a roadmap for future arbitrary-and-capricious challenges where executive statements contradict stated agency rationales.

Critically, this ruling does not affect [PM-602-0199](https://haven-five-hazel.vercel.app/blog/uscis-pm-602-0199-aos-extraordinary-relief-2026), the May 21, 2026 policy memorandum redefining adjustment of status as an “extraordinary act of administrative grace.” That policy applies to all I-485 applicants regardless of nationality and is the subject of [separate legal challenges](https://haven-five-hazel.vercel.app/blog/pm-602-0199-legal-challenges-aos-2026). Attorneys should assess both the *Dorcas* vacatur and PM-602-0199 when advising clients from the 39 countries with pending I-485 applications.

The ruling also does not affect the separate April 27, 2026 FBI fingerprint re-vetting pause, which applies to all applicants regardless of nationality and may continue to delay adjudications even for cases nominally unblocked by *Dorcas*.

What Applicants Should Do

If you are a national of one of the 39 listed countries with a pending I-485, EAD renewal, advance parole, or other USCIS application, the vacatur removes the categorical freeze on your case. That does not mean instant approval. USCIS has not yet issued implementation guidance, and the government is widely expected to appeal.

• Consult your immigration attorney to assess how the ruling affects your specific case and whether proactive USCIS engagement or mandamus litigation is warranted.
• Monitor your case status on the USCIS website and document all prior notices, biometrics appointments, and correspondence.
• Do not travel internationally without confirmed advance parole and legal advice. The underlying travel bans remain in effect — departing without valid parole could jeopardize your application.
• Maintain your nonimmigrant status if possible. The separate PM-602-0199 memo creates heightened denial risk for I-485 applicants who let their H-1B or O-1 status lapse in favor of EAD-only authorization.
• Watch for a government stay motion. If the First Circuit grants a stay pending appeal, the Benefits Hold could be temporarily reinstated.

What Happens Next

As of June 7, 2026, the government has not filed an appeal or a motion to stay the ruling. Both are expected. The government could seek a stay in the District of Rhode Island or directly in the First Circuit, ask the Supreme Court for emergency relief if lower courts deny a stay, or re-promulgate narrower policies through notice-and-comment rulemaking with a stronger administrative record.

The stay question will determine the near-term effect. If the First Circuit stays the vacatur during appeal, the policies could effectively return and cases would remain frozen. If no stay is granted, USCIS will need to resume processing cases for nationals of the 39 countries, though the agency has not said how quickly it can implement the ruling or how it will prioritize the backlog.

Over 30 separate lawsuits challenging the Benefits Hold are pending across federal courts. The *Dorcas* vacatur is the first nationwide remedy, but the litigation will continue across multiple circuits as the government pursues its appeal.