A Federal Court Has Vacated the USCIS “Hold and Review” Policies. Here is What That May Mean for Your Case.

Editor’s Note — Updated July 16, 2026

On July 15, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied the government’s request to stay its June 5, 2026 decision while the government pursues an appeal. As a result, USCIS must continue processing cases that were previously subject to the Benefits Hold Policy, Global Asylum Hold Policy, Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, and Country-Specific Factors Policy. Immigration practitioners have also begun reporting decisions in at least some cases that were previously placed on hold. However, the government’s appeal remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and further developments remain possible. Importantly, this ruling concerns USCIS benefit-processing and review policies. It does not lift the separate travel restrictions applicable to nationals of certain countries.

What the Court Decided

On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued an important decision in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS. The court vacated four USCIS policies that had paused or otherwise affected the adjudication of immigration-benefit applications involving nationals of designated countries.

The policies addressed by the court included the Benefits Hold Policy, which suspended decisions on certain immigration-benefit applications; the Global Asylum Hold Policy; the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, which required USCIS to reexamine certain previously approved cases; and the Country-Specific Factors Policy, which directed adjudicators to treat specified country conditions as significant negative factors in discretionary determinations.

The court concluded that these policies were unlawful and set them aside. USCIS subsequently acknowledged that the policies were no longer in effect, although the agency expressed disagreement with the ruling and the government appealed.

Which Countries Were Affected?

The litigation involved USCIS policies affecting nationals of the following 39 designated countries:

• Afghanistan
• Angola
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Benin
• Burkina Faso
• Burma
• Burundi
• Chad
• Côte d’Ivoire
• Cuba
• Dominica
• Equatorial Guinea
• Eritrea
• Gabon
• The Gambia
• Haiti
• Iran
• Laos
• Libya
• Malawi
• Mali
• Mauritania
• Niger
• Nigeria
• The Republic of the Congo
• Senegal
• Sierra Leone
• Somalia
• South Sudan
• Sudan
• Syria
• Tanzania
• Togo
• Tonga
• Turkmenistan
• Venezuela
• Yemen
• Zambia
• Zimbabwe

The challenged policies also extended to certain individuals traveling on documents issued by the Palestinian Authority. Importantly, their application was based on nationality or place of birth and, in some circumstances, could affect someone who also possessed citizenship or travel documents from another country.

What the Decision Does—and Does Not Do

The decision is significant, but it is important not to overstate its immediate effect. It does not mean that every delayed application will suddenly be approved or that the resulting backlog will disappear overnight.

Vacating these policies removes what appears to have been a substantial obstacle for many applicants. It does not, however, eliminate ordinary background checks, security screening, requests for additional evidence, interviews, or other case-specific issues that may independently affect processing. Every application still has its own factual and procedural history.

The decision also does not prevent USCIS from conducting lawful, individualized screening or reviewing a case based on evidence specific to that applicant. What the court rejected were the challenged categorical hold and review policies—not legitimate case-by-case adjudication.

The Travel Restrictions Remain a Separate Issue

This litigation should not be confused with separate restrictions on entry into the United States or immigrant visa processing at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. The Dorcas decision addresses USCIS policies governing immigration-benefit adjudications.

Individuals pursuing immigrant visas through consular processing may still be affected by separate Department of State policies, presidential proclamations, or entry restrictions that were not directly resolved by this case. Whether the decision affects a particular applicant will therefore depend on where the case is pending, the immigration benefit being requested, and the applicant’s individual circumstances.

What Happens During the Appeal?

The government has appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On July 15, 2026, the district court denied the government’s request to stay its ruling while that appeal proceeds.

For now, the four challenged USCIS policies remain vacated, and USCIS must continue processing affected cases. Nevertheless, the litigation is not over. The First Circuit could reach a different conclusion on the merits or grant separate interim relief while the appeal is pending.

That procedural uncertainty is one reason applicants should be cautious about assuming that the current situation is permanent.

What Should Affected Applicants Do Now?

For people whose applications have been sitting without meaningful movement, the decision offers a genuine reason for cautious optimism. Some cases may begin moving without any additional action as USCIS works through the backlog. Reports that USCIS has begun issuing decisions in some previously paused cases are encouraging, although they do not establish how quickly all affected cases will be addressed.

If a case may have been subject to one of the vacated policies, this is an appropriate time to review its status and determine whether follow-up is warranted. Depending on the circumstances, possible steps may include submitting a USCIS service request, contacting the USCIS Ombudsman, seeking assistance through a congressional office, or evaluating whether federal-court litigation is appropriate.

A mandamus action is not automatically warranted merely because a case was previously placed on hold. Its usefulness will depend on the length and cause of the delay, the applicant’s procedural posture, the steps already taken to obtain a decision, and the risks of prompting immediate adjudication.

Why This Matters

The Dorcas decision removes USCIS policies that had placed many applicants in prolonged uncertainty based largely on nationality or place of birth rather than the individual merits of their applications. The July 15 denial of the government’s stay request means that USCIS must continue processing affected cases while the appeal moves forward.

That does not guarantee immediate decisions or approvals. It does, however, provide a potential path forward for applicants whose cases had been stalled under the challenged policies.

As with so many developments in immigration law, the headlines do not tell the entire story. The travel restrictions themselves remain a separate issue, ordinary screening continues, and the appellate litigation could produce additional changes.

Schedule a Consultation

If your green card, employment authorization, naturalization, asylum, or other USCIS application may have been delayed under one of these policies, contact The Law Offices of Sean D. Hummel at (954) 385-3111 or email sean@hummelaw.com. We can review the history and current status of the case and help determine whether additional follow-up may be appropriate.

Disclaimer

This blog post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Immigration law and agency policies change frequently, litigation remains pending, and every case is different. You should consult with an immigration attorney about your specific circumstances before taking action.

About the Author

Sean D. Hummel is a Florida U.S. immigration lawyer based in Deerfield Beach. His practice focuses on family-based immigration, Adjustment of Status, waivers, naturalization, and removal-related immigration matters.