In a rebuke of recent USCIS immigration policies, a federal district court in Rhode Island vacated four agency policies that effectively suspended adjudication of thousands of immigration benefit requests. The June 5, 2026, decision in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS found that the policies exceeded USCIS’s statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). As a result, USCIS may no longer rely on these policies to halt adjudications of asylum applications, adjustment of status applications, employment authorization requests, naturalization applications, and other immigration benefits.
The ruling represents a judicial setback to the administration’s recent immigration enforcement initiatives and may serve as a reminder that, by law, immigration agencies cannot fundamentally alter congressionally created immigration processes through internal policy memoranda alone.
Which Policies Did the Court Strike Down?
The court invalidated four separate USCIS policies implemented in late 2025 and early 2026.
1. Benefits Hold Policy
This policy directed USCIS officers to suspend adjudication of immigration benefits filed by nationals of countries subject to the administration’s travel restrictions. Affected benefits reportedly included adjustment of status applications, employment authorization documents (EADs), naturalization applications, travel documents, and other immigration benefits. The policy had notable consequences for nationals of countries that had been designated under the administration’s travel and visa restrictions. While the list evolved over time, impacted countries included Afghanistan, Myanmar (Burma), Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, among others. For some individuals from these countries, the impact extended well beyond international travel. Immigration benefits that often serve as a pathway to long-term stability in the United States — including adjustment of status, employment authorization, asylum, and naturalization — were effectively placed in limbo, creating uncertainty for families, employers, universities, healthcare institutions, and communities nationwide.
2. Global Asylum Hold Policy
USCIS also imposed a nationwide pause on adjudication of asylum and withholding applications, regardless of the applicant’s nationality.
3. Comprehensive Re-Review Policy
The agency instructed officers to revisit and re-review certain previously approved immigration benefits involving nationals of designated countries, creating uncertainty even for individuals who had already received favorable decisions.
4. Country-Specific Factors Policy
USCIS amended its guidance to instruct adjudicators to treat country-specific concerns associated with certain nationalities as a negative factor in discretionary immigration decisions.
The court concluded that all four policies were contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
Why This Decision Matters
Though the decision directly affects applicants from the countries targeted by the travel restrictions, its importance extends beyond those individuals. At its core, the case addresses a fundamental question: Can USCIS simply stop adjudicating immigration benefits that Congress has authorized? The court ruled that the answer is no.
Immigration statutes generally require USCIS to adjudicate applications and petitions filed under the immigration laws. While the agency has broad authority to approve or deny cases based on eligibility requirements, it does not have unlimited authority to place entire categories of applications into indefinite limbo based solely on an applicant’s nationality, country of birth, or generalized policy concerns. The court emphasized that applicants had followed the legal processes established by Congress and USCIS itself yet were left waiting indefinitely for decisions based on factors unrelated to their individual eligibility. In doing so, the decision reinforced a fundamental principle of administrative law: agencies must exercise the authority Congress granted them, but they may not create new barriers or suspend statutory processes absent clear legal authorization.
Implications for Employers
For employers, the practical consequences of these policies were notable. Foreign nationals whose adjustment applications, EAD renewals, or other immigration benefits were placed on hold often faced uncertainty regarding work authorization, international travel, onboarding, promotions, and long-term workforce planning. Universities, healthcare organizations, research institutions, technology companies, and multinational employers were impacted because many employees, researchers, physicians, and students originated from countries subject to the restrictions. If the court’s ruling remains in place, employers may begin to see movement on long-stalled applications and employment authorization requests. This could provide more predictability for workforce planning and immigration compliance.
At the same time, employers should remain cautious. USCIS has not yet issued comprehensive guidance regarding implementation of the decision, and the government may seek a stay pending appeal. As with many major immigration rulings, the litigation may continue even after the district court’s decision.
An Important Limitation: The Decision Does Not Eliminate Travel Restrictions or Guarantee Visa Issuance Abroad
It is important to understand what the decision does — and does not — do.
The policies the court vacated were USCIS adjudication policies. They governed how USCIS processed applications and petitions within its jurisdiction, including adjustment of status applications, employment authorization requests, naturalization applications, asylum applications, and other immigration benefits. The decision does not invalidate the underlying travel restrictions themselves, nor does it directly affect visa issuance decisions made by the U.S. Department of State at consulates and embassies abroad. As a result, individuals pursuing adjustment of status in the United States may see the most immediate benefit from the ruling, as USCIS should now resume adjudicating applications that may have been placed on hold under the challenged policies.
For individuals pursuing immigrant visa processing abroad, the impact may be more limited. If USCIS had delayed adjudication of an underlying petition because the beneficiary was from one of the affected countries, that obstacle should now be removed. However, once a case reaches the National Visa Center and a U.S. consulate, applicants may still encounter travel restrictions, enhanced vetting requirements, administrative processing, or other visa issuance limitations arising from separate presidential actions or Department of State policies. In other words, the court’s decision restores USCIS’s obligation to adjudicate immigration benefits, but it does not guarantee that a visa will be issued overseas or eliminate other restrictions that may apply to nationals of designated countries.
What Happens Next?
The decision vacated the policies themselves rather than merely prohibiting their enforcement against specific plaintiffs. That distinction is important. Vacatur under the APA generally means the challenged agency actions are set aside and may no longer be relied upon while the decision remains in effect. As a result, affected applications should return to normal adjudication processes unless a higher court intervenes.
However, litigation may not be over. The government may appeal the decision and seek a stay that would temporarily restore the policies while appellate review proceeds. USCIS may also explore alternative approaches to implementing its national security objectives that attempt to address the legal deficiencies identified by the court.
