Federal Judge Strikes Down USCIS Application Hold Policies Affecting Asylum, Green Card, Work Permit, and Citizenship Cases

By Steve Levine

Published: June 7, 2026

USCIS Application Freeze Struck Down: What Happened

A federal judge has struck down several USCIS policies that had paused or blocked final decisions on a wide range of immigration applications — including asylum, work permits, green cards, adjustment of status, and citizenship. The ruling came on June 5, 2026 in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island et al. v. USCIS et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00132-JJM-PAS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. found that four USCIS policies were unlawful and set them aside. The court wrote that the policies had placed the lives of countless individuals on hold because of their countries of birth.

If you have searched for the USCIS lawsuit over immigration delays, the USCIS asylum hold being lifted, a USCIS application freeze, or whether USCIS was sued for pausing applications, this ruling is the reason those phrases are suddenly everywhere. Below is a plain-English breakdown of what the court decided — and, just as important, what it did not decide.

This Is Not a Settlement or Claim Form

Open Class Actions covers settlements, so we want to be clear up front: this is a court ruling, not a class action settlement. There is no settlement fund, no payout, no deadline, and no claim form connected to this decision. Nobody receives money, and there is nothing to sign up for.

What the ruling does is legal, not financial. It removes the challenged USCIS hold policies as a basis for keeping applications frozen. Affected applicants continue to deal with USCIS through the normal application process — the same forms, the same case numbers, the same online status checks.

What the USCIS Ruling Says

The lawsuit was brought by a group of organizations — Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, the Refugee Dream Center, SEIU, UAW, African Communities Together, the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, the Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, and American Gateways — against USCIS, its director, the Department of Homeland Security, and a federal official.

In a Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 28) filed June 5, 2026, the court declared four USCIS policies unlawful and vacated them. In the same order, the judge:

• Granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part;
• Granted the government's cross-motion in part and denied it in part;
• Denied the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction; and
• Denied the government's motion to dismiss the constitutional claims without prejudice.

The practical effect is straightforward: USCIS cannot rely on those vacated policies to keep applications frozen — unless a higher court changes the result on appeal.

Which USCIS Policies Were Struck Down

The court declared unlawful and set aside these four USCIS policies:

• Global Asylum Hold Policy — paused final decisions on many asylum cases.
• Benefits Hold Policy — paused decisions on immigration benefit requests, described in the order as applying to people connected to certain listed countries.
• Comprehensive Re-Review Policy — required additional internal re-review before cases could be finalized.
• Country-Specific Factors Policy — folded an applicant's country of birth into whether and when a decision would issue.

Together, critics described these as a USCIS asylum hold and a broader benefits hold that left applications sitting without a final answer.

What Immigration Applications Were Affected

According to the case, the challenged policies could pause or block final decisions on a broad set of immigration benefit requests, including:

• Asylum applications (USCIS asylum application delay);
• Work permits / employment authorization (Form I-765, EAD application delay);
• Green cards and adjustment of status (Form I-485, green card application delayed, adjustment of status delayed);
• Travel documents and certain humanitarian parole requests (Form I-131, humanitarian parole delay);
• Citizenship and naturalization (naturalization delayed, citizenship application delayed).

That mix is why so many different groups of applicants — from asylum seekers to long-time green card filers to people waiting on a work permit — have been following this case. The common thread was a USCIS immigration application hold that stopped cases short of a final decision.

Does This Mean USCIS Must Approve Delayed Cases?

No. This is the single most important point, and it is easy to get wrong.

The ruling does not automatically approve anyone's application. It does not mean everyone will immediately get a green card, work permit, asylum, parole, or citizenship. What it does is remove the vacated policies as a reason to keep decisions frozen.

In plain terms: the freeze tied to these specific policies is what the court set aside. Each application is still reviewed and decided on its own merits, and the timing of any decision remains uncertain. The ruling may allow affected cases to move forward, but it does not guarantee an outcome or a date.

Does This Affect U4U, Ukraine Parole, or Ukrainian Re-Parole Applicants?

Many Ukrainians waiting on USCIS — for Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) parole, Ukrainian re-parole, TPS, a work permit, asylum, Form I-131, Form I-765, or a green card — are searching for this ruling because they are worried about USCIS delays. So let's answer it carefully.

First, the framing: this is not a Ukraine-only lawsuit and not a U4U-only lawsuit, and Ukraine is not one of the 39 listed "travel ban" countries that the Benefits Hold Policy and Country-Specific Factors Policy were built around. That is why many Ukrainians have assumed the case has nothing to do with them. But two parts of the ruling reach beyond those 39 countries — and that is where it can matter for Ukrainian nationals.

1. The Global Asylum Hold was lifted — and it applied to everyone

The policy the court called the Global Asylum Hold Policy was exactly that — global. By its terms it paused final adjudications on asylum and withholding-of-removal applications regardless of the applicant's country of origin. A pending Ukrainian asylum case could be swept into that freeze even though Ukraine was never a travel-ban target.

Judge McConnell vacated that global hold. With it set aside, USCIS can no longer rely on the Global Asylum Hold Policy to keep asylum cases frozen, and held cases are expected to resume processing. Important: resuming processing is not the same as an approval — a vacated hold means your case can move again, not that asylum is granted. If you have a parallel or pending asylum application that felt completely stuck over the last several months, this is the part of the ruling that is most likely to touch it.

2. Ukrainian TPS — it depends on when you entered

For TPS specifically, the case is mostly about a separate policy, the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, which the court also struck down. How relevant it is to a given Ukrainian applicant tends to turn on entry date:

• Entered before January 20, 2021: TPS applications, renewals, and EADs were not the focus of this particular litigation and continue under standard USCIS processing and backlogs.
• Entered on or after January 20, 2021 (for example via Uniting for Ukraine or other post-2021 humanitarian pathways): the struck-down re-review policy is the one that had reportedly pulled certain post-2021 files back out for additional review. By vacating it, the court removed that mechanism as a basis for retroactively re-reviewing or expanding scrutiny of post-2021 humanitarian populations.

Even so, based on the order itself, Ukraine TPS renewals and U4U re-parole do not appear to have been the central, named targets of the vacated policies — and the ruling does not automatically approve any Ukrainian TPS, parole, re-parole, work permit, or asylum application. A long wait by itself also does not prove a case was caught by these policies; delays can come from ordinary backlog, security checks, biometrics, or routine processing. Ukraine TPS and U4U re-parole remain separate USCIS processes.

The bottom line for Ukrainians. If you are on the TPS track, keep re-registering and filing EAD renewals exactly as prescribed during Ukraine's designated registration windows — your path remains open. If you have a pending asylum application that stalled, this ruling is the legal wedge that can force USCIS to start moving it again. Expect the Department of Homeland Security to appeal, so keeping your paperwork current is the best protection against shifting timelines.

Useful official starting points include the USCIS Re-Parole Process for Certain Ukrainian Citizens page and the Ukraine TPS page.

This section is general information, not legal advice, and entry-date categories are summarized in plain terms — they do not capture every situation. For what this ruling means for your own asylum, TPS, parole, or work permit case, consult a qualified immigration attorney.

Why the Judge Said the Policies Were Unlawful

The court found the four policies unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — the federal law that governs how agencies like USCIS make and apply rules. In the order, the judge described the effect of the policies as putting the lives of countless individuals on hold based on where they were born.

Because the policies were vacated under the APA, they are set aside as a basis for freezing decisions. The court denied a permanent injunction and left certain constitutional claims unresolved (dismissed without prejudice rather than decided), so the decision is grounded mainly in administrative law rather than a broad constitutional ruling.

What Happens Next

The government may appeal the ruling or seek further review, and a higher court could change the outcome. How quickly USCIS resumes or speeds up processing on previously held cases is not spelled out by the order, and the agency could push back.

If you have a pending USCIS case, the practical steps are the same regardless of the headlines:

• Check your case status through your official USCIS online account and watch for any notices.
• Keep your mailing address and contact information current with USCIS.
• Watch official USCIS announcements for any guidance on resuming held adjudications.
• Consider speaking with a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case — especially before making decisions based on this ruling.

This article is general information, not legal advice. For your own application, talk to a licensed immigration attorney.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this a class action settlement?
No. It is a federal court ruling on a lawsuit against USCIS, not a settlement. There is no settlement fund, no payment, no deadline, and no claim form.

Is there a claim form?
No. Because this is a court ruling and not a settlement, there is nothing to claim and no form to file. Applicants continue through the normal USCIS process.

What USCIS policies did the judge strike down?
Four: the Global Asylum Hold Policy, the Benefits Hold Policy, the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, and the Country-Specific Factors Policy.

Does this affect asylum applications?
The vacated policies included a Global Asylum Hold Policy that paused many asylum decisions. With it set aside, USCIS cannot use it to keep asylum cases frozen — but the ruling does not automatically grant asylum.

Does this affect work permits or EAD applications?
Work permit (Form I-765 / EAD) requests were among the benefit types that could be paused. The ruling may help delayed cases move forward, but it does not guarantee approval or a timeline.

Does this affect green card or adjustment of status applications?
Green card and adjustment of status (Form I-485) requests were among the affected benefit types. The ruling removes the vacated policies as a basis to freeze cases; it does not automatically approve a green card.

Does this affect citizenship or naturalization applications?
Naturalization and citizenship requests were also among the affected benefit types. The ruling does not grant citizenship automatically; it removes the vacated policies as a reason to hold decisions.

Does this affect U4U or Ukraine parole?
Indirectly. Ukraine is not one of the 39 travel-ban countries, but the vacated Global Asylum Hold Policy applied to asylum cases regardless of country, so a pending Ukrainian asylum case caught in that freeze can now resume processing. For TPS and U4U re-parole specifically, the order does not clearly show those were the central targets, and it does not automatically approve any Ukrainian application.

Does this mean my USCIS case will be approved?
No. The ruling does not approve any individual application. It removes the vacated policies as a basis to freeze decisions; each case is still decided on its own merits, and timing remains uncertain.

Can the government appeal?
Yes. The government may appeal or seek further review, and a higher court could change the result.

What should affected applicants do next?
Monitor official USCIS updates and your case status, keep your contact information current, and consider speaking with a qualified immigration attorney about your specific situation.

Read the Ruling: Dorcas v. USCIS Order (Document)

The full Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 28) striking down the USCIS hold policies is embedded below. If it doesn't load on your device, use the download link.

Sources

• CourtListener — Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS docket
• Memorandum and Order, ECF No. 28 (PDF) — U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (filed June 5, 2026), Case No. 1:26-cv-00132-JJM-PAS
• USCIS — Re-Parole Process for Certain Ukrainian Citizens (Uniting for Ukraine)
• USCIS — Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization
• USCIS — Form I-131, Application for Travel Document

How Do I Find Class Action Settlements?