Federal Judge Orders USCIS to Resume Processing Over 1 Million Applications

Key Summary:

• A federal court has vacated four major Trump-era USCIS policies designed to halt benefits processing.
• The landmark ruling in Dorcas v. USCIS declares indefinite application holds and country-specific vetting penalties unlawful under the APA.
• Judges rebuked the administration for creating a “legal limbo” for thousands of applicants based solely on country of birth.
• While Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 established a baseline of “heightened scrutiny,” the new ruling prevents the blanket freezing of domestic applications.
• Legal experts warn of pending administration appeals, advising applicants to move quickly while the systemic blocks are lifted.

On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a summary judgment in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS. The 135-page ruling vacated four internal, unpublicized USCIS policies that had effectively paused processing for specific categories of applications.

By ruling that these directives violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the court re-established clear limits on how far the executive branch can alter the immigration pipeline through internal guidelines rather than legislative action.

The Discretionary Framework of PM-602-0199

To understand the broader implications of the Dorcas ruling, it must be viewed alongside the administration’s baseline policy shift established late last month. On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, which fundamentally changed the administrative handling of in-country green card applications without modifying statutory law.

Under Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), individuals who enter the U.S. legally and maintain valid nonimmigrant status are statutorily eligible to apply for an Adjustment of Status (AOS) domestically. However, PM-602-0199 instructs adjudicating officers to apply heightened scrutiny to the final, discretionary layer of the application, reversing the historical presumption where a clean record generally led to approval as a matter of course.

Under this guidance:

• Dual-Intent Visas (H-1B and L-1): Holding a valid status is no longer considered sufficient on its own to warrant approval, requiring professionals to provide rigorous documentation of community, professional, and fiscal ties to secure an in-country adjustment.
• Non-Dual-Intent Visas (F-1 and J-1): Students and exchange visitors face intense scrutiny regarding the precise timeline and evolution of their immigrant intent when transitioning to a green card pathway.
• Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens: Family-based applicants must produce a larger volume of evidence to satisfy comprehensive, case-by-case reviews of moral character and societal contributions.

The administration has stated that the objective of PM-602-0199 is to relieve severe domestic USCIS backlogs by offloading final processing to Department of State consular posts abroad, while minimizing unauthorized overstays by keeping denied applicants outside U.S. borders. However, as the Dorcas litigation demonstrates, this shift in the discretionary standard was running parallel to much stricter internal processing freezes.

The Four Internal USCIS Policies Struck Down in Dorcas

The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of labor unions and immigrant service organizations, including the Dorcas International Institute, the Refugee Dream Center, SEIU, and the UAW. The plaintiffs challenged four distinct, unpublicized operational directives implemented by the administration that had slowed or halted processing for specific populations since late 2025.

Judge McConnell found all four directives to be unlawful under the APA, ordering them entirely vacated:

The Benefits Hold Policy

Following a security incident involving an Afghan national in late 2025, the administration imposed an indefinite hold on final decisions for applicants from 39 designated high-risk or travel-ban countries. Under this directive, applications for green cards, employment authorization documents (EADs), and naturalization were placed on a procedural freeze mid-pipeline based strictly on the applicant’s country of birth.

The Country-Specific Factors Policy

This directive instructed USCIS adjudicators to treat an applicant’s national origin as an automatic, significant negative factor when evaluating the discretionary portion of applications filed within the United States. It instituted a baseline procedural hurdle for legal immigrants from specific regions in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, altering how individualized vetting was weighted.

The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy

This policy mandated that USCIS reopen and reconsider previously approved immigration benefits for any individual from the 39 target countries who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021. The directive effectively introduced a retroactive review mechanism for legally settled, long-term residents.

The Global Asylum Hold Policy

In a broader operational freeze, the administration placed a blanket hold on the processing of all affirmative asylum applications (Form I-589), regardless of the applicant’s nationality. This internal freeze effectively paused the domestic asylum adjudication system, compounding existing processing backlogs.

Agency Discretion vs. Duty to Adjudicate

In defending the policies, the federal government argued that its actions were rooted in national security and fell entirely within executive authority. The government maintained that under INA Section 212(f), the President possesses broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of foreign nationals, and that this power extends to managing domestic benefits processing.

The court rejected this defense, delineating a clear distinction between border enforcement and domestic agency operations under the APA:

• Limits of Section 212(f): The court held that while Section 212(f) grants the executive wide latitude to control the entry of individuals at the border, it does not grant USCIS the authority to freeze domestic benefits or halt the processing of individuals already lawfully residing inside the United States.
• The Obligation to Adjudicate: The ruling reaffirmed a foundational principle of administrative law: while the final outcome of an application may involve agency discretion, the act of adjudicating it does not. The INA imposes a mandatory duty on USCIS to process applications in a timely manner. The agency cannot collect fees and indefinitely halt a file based on broad internal holds.
• Rejection of Broad Profiling: The court concluded that the blanket holds penalized individuals based on national origin rather than individualized security assessments, rendering the policies arbitrary, capricious, and a violation of federal administrative requirements.

The Intersection of Dorcas and PM-602-0199

The immediate practical result of the Dorcas decision is that the blanket freezes are lifted, and USCIS must resume processing work permits, green cards, and naturalization applications that were held under the 39-country directive and the asylum freeze. This provides administrative predictability for corporate employers navigating workforce gaps caused by delayed renewals.

More broadly, the ruling sets a clear boundary that impacts how policies like PM-602-0199 can be applied. While PM-602-0199 relies on an intensive review of the “discretionary” phase of Adjustment of Status applications, the Dorcas decision clarifies that the executive branch cannot use the concept of administrative discretion to mask systemic processing delays or unauthorized freezes.

By affirming that federal courts retain the authority to review internal USCIS procedures and enforce the agency’s statutory obligation to process cases, Dorcas establishes a significant legal precedent. If individual USCIS field offices attempt to use the heightened scrutiny of PM-602-0199 to issue systemic, boilerplate denials or create artificial processing delays to force applicants into consular processing, business coalitions and legal advocates now have a validated framework to launch subsequent APA challenges.

To counter the ongoing ‘heightened scrutiny’ mandated by PM-602-0199, even with blanket holds lifted, applicants must actively document their positive ‘equities’ to secure a favorable exercise of discretion. Immigration practitioners note that bulletproof filings should now explicitly feature:

• Continuous, clean tax compliance transcripts.
• Long-term, stable employment records and specialized academic credentials.
• Deep community roots, such as property ownership, civic organization involvement, or U.S. citizen family ties.
• A clear, documented timeline of nonimmigrant status maintenance to refute any sudden allegations of ‘preconceived immigrant intent’ upon their initial entry.

What Employers and Applicants Should Expect

The operational landscape remains fluid, and stakeholders should prepare for potential shifts as the litigation moves into the appellate phase:

• Department of Justice Appeal: The federal government is expected to immediately appeal Judge McConnell’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

• Application for an Emergency Stay: Along with the appeal, the government will likely file a motion for an emergency stay of the district court’s order. If the First Circuit grants this stay, the internal freezes could be temporarily reinstated while the appellate court reviews the merits of the case.

• Individualized Scrutiny via RFEs: Even with the blanket freezes lifted, USCIS officers retain individual authority to issue complex Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs). Under the directive of PM-602-0199, officers may look closely at individualized discretionary factors, making meticulous, evidence-based case preparation a necessity.

Navigate Evolving Immigration Policies with Lawit Law

The balance between executive directives and judicial oversight is rapidly redefining the legal immigration landscape. Navigating the removal of internal processing holds alongside heightened discretionary scrutiny requires a clear strategy and extensive documentation.

Whether you are an employer managing international personnel or an individual building an Adjustment of Status case, ensuring your file satisfies complex regulatory standards is vital to preventing delays.

Put four decades of immigration excellence in your corner. Contact our team at Lawit Law at (214) 609-2242 to review your case file, address active agency requests, and ensure compliance with the latest federal regulations.