Ohio Court Orders USCIS to Resume Green Card and EAD Processing Within 30 Days

What Happened

On July 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the Southern District of Ohio issued a [69-page opinion and order](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/usdc-ohio-immigration-executive-actions-opinion.pdf) granting a preliminary injunction in *Doe 1 v. Edlow*, No. 2:26-cv-494. The ruling requires U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to resume processing frozen immigration benefit applications — including green cards, work permits, and travel documents — for 25 foreign nationals already lawfully residing in the United States.

Judge Marbley found that three USCIS policies had "indefinitely pause[d] USCIS's final adjudication of pending immigration benefit applications submitted by foreign nationals from certain countries" while also treating their nationality as "a significant and negative factor" in the adjudication process. The court concluded that these policies likely exceeded USCIS's statutory authority under both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The ruling is the latest in a growing series of federal court decisions — spanning [Rhode Island](https://haven-five-hazel.vercel.app/blog/dorcas-ruling-uscis-compliance-gap-june-2026), Boston, California, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Maryland, and Indiana — that have rejected the administration's approach of extending presidential travel-restriction proclamations to freeze benefit applications for people already inside the country.

Who's Affected

The 25 plaintiffs hold citizenship in Burma, Canada, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Tanzania, and Venezuela. They are all lawfully present in the United States, many for years, and several had previously been authorized to work. Judge Marbley described them as including:

• A hospital pharmacist
• A registered nurse and federally funded cancer researcher
• College graduates with pending job offers in science and engineering
• A university professor
• Young couples raising families in the United States

Three USCIS Policies the Court Found Unlawful

The ruling challenges three specific policies that USCIS implemented following two presidential proclamations (Proclamation 10949 and Proclamation 10998) governing foreign national entry:

• **Policy Alert PA-2025-26** (November 27, 2025): Updated the USCIS Policy Manual to incorporate country-specific concerns from Proclamation 10949 into benefit adjudication, directing officers to treat nationality from covered countries as a "significant and negative factor" — effectively extending entry restrictions to people already inside the U.S.
• **PM-602-0194** (January 1, 2026): Placed an indefinite adjudicative hold on all pending benefit applications filed by foreign nationals from 39 countries designated as "high-risk," including Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Venezuela.
• **PM-602-0199** (May 21, 2026): Redefined adjustment of status as an "extraordinary form of relief" rather than a standard procedure, favoring consular processing abroad and driving up domestic processing times for people already in the country.

What the Court Ordered

The preliminary injunction includes specific, time-bound relief that attorneys should note:

• **Resume I-485 processing**: USCIS and DHS must restart adjudication of all pending Form I-485 (adjustment of status) applications filed by the plaintiffs.
• **Resume I-131 processing**: Pending Form I-131 (advance parole / travel document) applications must also be moved forward.
• **30-day EAD deadline**: All pending Form I-765 (employment authorization document) applications must be adjudicated within 30 days of the order — meaning the deadline falls around August 5, 2026.
• **Policy enforcement bar**: USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin are barred from applying the challenged policy alert and memoranda to any pending benefit application filed by the plaintiffs.
• **Compliance report**: The government must file a written report within 30 days explaining how USCIS and DHS have complied with the injunction.

What Attorneys Should Know

**The legal framework is strengthening.** The Doe v. Edlow ruling extends the reasoning established in [*Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS*](https://haven-five-hazel.vercel.app/blog/dorcas-ruling-uscis-compliance-gap-june-2026) (D.R.I., June 5, 2026), where Chief Judge McConnell struck down four related USCIS policies. Together with a Boston ruling from April 30, 2026, federal courts in at least three jurisdictions have now found that USCIS likely exceeded its authority by imposing nationality-based freezes on benefit applications.

**APA and INA claims are succeeding.** Judge Marbley's analysis rests on two key findings: (1) the challenged policies were not authorized by the presidential proclamations they claim to implement, since those proclamations address entry — not benefit adjudication for people already present; and (2) the agency's broad statutory authorities under [6 U.S.C. § 271(a)(3)(D)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title6-section271&num=0&edition=prelim) and [6 U.S.C. § 202(5)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title6-section202&num=0&edition=prelim) do not "unambiguously confer total agency discretion" to freeze adjudication.

**Jurisdiction stripping arguments are failing.** The government argued that courts lack jurisdiction to review these policies under [8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1252&num=0&edition=prelim). Marbley rejected this, drawing on *Kucana v. Holder*, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) and *Make the Road N.Y. v. Wolf*, 962 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2020), finding that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions target individual discretionary relief decisions — not blanket agency policies.

**Mandamus and class actions remain viable.** For EB applicants not covered by this injunction, the ruling provides strong persuasive authority for mandamus actions under [28 U.S.C. § 1361](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section1361&num=0&edition=prelim) or APA challenges. Where a client's case file shows delays linked to nationality-based holds rather than routine security checks, the growing body of precedent across multiple circuits strengthens the argument.

**The appeal is expected.** The administration is expected to appeal. But USCIS has already signaled compliance in the related Dorcas case — after that ruling, agency officials told the court that employees had been instructed to treat the challenged restrictions "as if they are no longer in effect." Whether that instruction extends to cases outside the specific plaintiffs in each ruling remains an open question attorneys should monitor.

What Applicants Should Do

If you are an employment-based visa holder or green card applicant affected by USCIS processing delays, here are concrete steps to consider:

• **Check your case status.** Log into your [USCIS online account](https://my.uscis.gov/) and review any pending I-485, I-765, or I-131 applications. Note the filing date and any status updates. If your case has shown no movement for months, document the timeline.
• **Determine whether you are from a covered country.** The challenged policies specifically affect nationals of countries covered by the travel proclamations, including those on the 39-country list from PM-602-0194. If your nationality places you in this category and your case is frozen, the Doe v. Edlow reasoning may apply.
• **Talk to your attorney about next steps.** This ruling does not automatically unfreeze every case — it applies directly only to the 25 plaintiffs. However, attorneys may be able to use it as persuasive authority in an outside inquiry, a mandamus petition, or a similar APA challenge on your behalf.
• **Protect your EAD status.** If you have a pending I-765 renewal and your current EAD is expiring, be aware that the administration finalized the end of automatic work permit extensions in late 2025. Senator Jacky Rosen [wrote to DHS](https://www.visaverge.com/visa/sen-jacky-rosen-presses-trump-admin-on-visa-delays-over-uscis-backlog/) on July 10, 2026, citing a 12-million-case backlog and a 247,000-case "frontlog" where applications have been received but not yet entered into the USCIS system — meaning applicants may lack even a receipt notice to show employers.
• **Keep your employer informed.** If you are on an employment-based visa and your EAD renewal is pending, your employer may need documentation showing your application is in process. Receipt notices, case status screenshots, and attorney correspondence can help.

The Bigger Picture: A Pattern of Judicial Rejection

The Doe v. Edlow ruling did not emerge in isolation. Federal courts across the country have been building a consistent body of law rejecting USCIS's approach to nationality-based processing freezes:

• **Rhode Island** (June 5, 2026): Chief Judge McConnell vacated four USCIS policies in *Dorcas International Institute v. USCIS*, finding them unlawful under the APA. Approximately 200 individuals were affected.
• **Boston** (April 30, 2026): A federal judge blocked USCIS adjudicative holds affecting approximately 200 applicants across 20 countries.
• **Multiple other jurisdictions**: Judge Marbley cited similar relief granted by courts in California, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Maryland, Indiana, and elsewhere.