DHS Green Card Policy Reversal 2026: Federal Court Strikes Down USCIS Travel Ban Freeze

In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. struck down four USCIS policies that had frozen immigration benefit adjudications for nationals from 39 African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries. The court found these policies violated both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), declaring all four unlawful, vacated, and set aside. The affected applicants included thousands of noncitizens from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Venezuela who had legally filed asylum, adjustment of status, work authorization, visa, and naturalization applications. Despite completing all required steps — paying fees, submitting biometrics, and attending interviews — USCIS refused to adjudicate their cases based solely on their country of birth and date of entry. The court traced the policies back to Executive Order 14161 and subsequent Proclamations 10949 and 10998, which established travel restrictions focused on border entry. Judge McConnell found that these presidential actions did not authorize USCIS to halt domestic processing of benefits for individuals already inside the United States — a critical legal distinction the agency failed to respect. For EB-3 employment-based applicants from Travel Ban Countries, this ruling is significant. If USCIS had placed holds on adjustment of status (Form I-485) applications or related employment authorization documents (EADs) for nationals of these 39 countries, this decision mandates those cases be adjudicated on their individual merits rather than nationality-based holds. The ruling reinforces that USCIS cannot use broad executive proclamations targeting border entry as justification to stonewall lawfully filed domestic immigration benefit applications. Affected applicants and their attorneys should monitor developments closely, as USCIS may appeal, but the court's order to vacate and set aside all four policies represents a significant legal check on agency overreach.