Special Update: Federal Court Strikes Down USCIS Adjudication Holds Affecting Afghans and Other Nationalities

Today, 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 decision vacating several USCIS policies that had paused or altered the adjudication of immigration benefits for nationals of Afghanistan and 38 other countries. The case is Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island et al. v. USCIS et al.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims and ruled that the challenged policies were contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The court vacated the policies and entered declaratory relief. It did not issue a permanent injunction.

The Policies at Issue

The court reviewed four USCIS policies:

Benefits Hold Policy

USCIS directed officers to place holds on pending immigration benefit requests filed by individuals from countries covered by Presidential Proclamations 10949 and 10998, which together covered 39 countries, including Afghanistan. Under the policy, applications could continue through some processing steps but could not receive final adjudications.

Global Asylum Hold Policy

USCIS directed personnel to place a hold on asylum and withholding of removal adjudications while conducting broader reviews.

Comprehensive Re-Review Policy

USCIS directed officers to re-review previously approved benefit requests involving individuals from covered countries who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021.

Country-Specific Factors Policy

USCIS revised its Policy Manual to instruct adjudicators to consider country-specific factors associated with travel-ban countries as significant negative discretionary factors in benefit adjudications.

What the Court Held

The court concluded that USCIS lacked authority to implement these policies and that the agency’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, the court found that:

• The policies were contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act and applicable regulations.

• USCIS relied on authority that Congress had not granted.

• USCIS failed to provide adequate explanations for its actions.

• USCIS failed to account for reliance interests of affected applicants.

• USCIS’s stated national-security rationale did not support the policies in the manner required under administrative law.

The court ultimately vacated all four policies.

What This Means for Afghan Nationals

Afghanistan was among the countries specifically covered by the challenged USCIS policies. The ruling therefore directly affects the legal framework under which USCIS had been placing holds on many applications involving Afghan nationals.

The decision potentially affects USCIS-administered benefits including:

• Adjustment of Status (green card applications)

• Naturalization applications

• Employment authorization applications

• Asylum-related adjudications

• Other immigration benefit requests subject to the challenged policies.

The court’s ruling means that the policies authorizing those adjudication holds have been vacated unless stayed or overturned on appeal.

What the Decision Does Not Do

The ruling is important, but its scope is limited.

It Does Not Invalidate the Travel Ban

The court repeatedly distinguished between the President’s authority under INA §212(f) to restrict entry and USCIS’s authority to adjudicate immigration benefits. The decision addresses USCIS policies, not the Presidential Proclamations themselves.

It Does Not Reopen the Refugee Admissions Program

The opinion concerns USCIS adjudications and does not order the resumption of U.S. Refugee Admissions Program processing.

It Does Not Resolve Overseas Visa Processing Issues

The ruling does not directly address:

• Consular visa processing

• Refugee admissions

• Enduring Welcome operations

• Follow-to-Join Asylee processing

• Other State Department-administered programs.

What Happens Next

The government may seek a stay of the ruling and appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Until further court action occurs, the district court’s order vacating the challenged policies remains in effect. Whether and how quickly USCIS modifies its operations in response remains to be seen.

Bottom Line

The court invalidated USCIS policies that had paused adjudications, re-reviewed previously approved cases, and directed officers to treat nationality from Afghanistan and other covered countries as a significant negative factor in discretionary immigration decisions. The ruling represents a substantial legal setback for those USCIS policies, but it does not itself reopen refugee processing, eliminate the travel ban, or resolve broader challenges facing Afghan allies and their families.