Dorcas v. USCIS: What the Ruling on Nationality-Based Holds Means for Stalled Cases

In June 2026 a federal court in Rhode Island set aside the USCIS policies that had frozen green card, work permit, naturalization and asylum decisions for people from dozens of countries. Here is what happened, what is still being litigated, and what the ruling means for an application that has stopped moving.

How the holds began

On June 4, 2025, the President signed Proclamation 10949, which fully or partially restricted entry for nationals of 19 countries. A second proclamation, Proclamation 10998, signed on December 16, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, expanded the list to 39 countries and to certain holders of Palestinian Authority travel documents. Both proclamations were issued under INA § 212(f), which deals with the entry of noncitizens into the United States.

USCIS then applied those proclamations to people who were already inside the country. A December 2, 2025 policy memorandum (PM-602-0192) placed a hold on every pending Form I-589 asylum application, regardless of nationality, and on pending benefit requests filed by nationals of the 19 original countries. It also ordered a "comprehensive re-review" of benefits already approved for nationals of those countries who entered on or after January 20, 2021. A January 1, 2026 memorandum (PM-602-0194) extended the hold to nationals of all countries listed in Proclamation 10998. Under that memo, files could move through intermediate steps, such as biometrics or requests for evidence, but officers could not issue a final decision. A separate policy alert told officers to treat the proclamations' country-specific concerns as significant negative factors in discretionary decisions.

For applicants, the practical result was simple: adjustment of status, work permits, naturalization and asylum files stopped producing decisions, often with no explanation beyond a generic notice. Readers who want to understand how USCIS normally measures delay can start with our guide to official USCIS processing times.

What the court decided

A coalition of organizations, unions and individual applicants sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (Case No. 1:26-cv-00132). On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge McConnell granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims in a lengthy opinion. The court concluded that the policies exceeded USCIS's authority and were arbitrary and capricious, and it vacated four of them: the global asylum hold, the benefits hold, the comprehensive re-review policy and the country-specific factors policy.

A central part of the reasoning was the difference between entry and adjudication. The proclamations address who may enter the United States or receive a visa abroad. Congress, however, has given USCIS separate statutory duties to decide applications filed by people already here, and the APA requires agencies to conclude matters presented to them "within a reasonable time" (5 U.S.C. § 555(b)). Vacatur means the policies are treated as if they were not in effect; it does not mean that any particular application must be approved.

USCIS stated on June 12, 2026 that it disagreed with the decision but would comply while it prepared new guidance. The same day, the government filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Where things stand on appeal

The government asked the district court to pause its ruling while the appeal proceeds. On July 15, 2026 the court denied that request. The government then asked the First Circuit for a stay. According to the public docket, a three-judge panel granted the stay only in part, limited to the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, and otherwise denied it. In practical terms, as of the date of this article the benefits hold, the asylum hold and the country-specific factors policy remain vacated, while the re-review of previously approved cases is not blocked during the appeal.

This is an open matter. The First Circuit has not decided the merits, the government could seek relief from the Supreme Court, and USCIS may issue new guidance that is itself challenged. Anyone relying on the ruling should check the current status before acting.

What the ruling means for a stalled application

Because the holds were vacated, an application should no longer be frozen solely because of the applicant's country of birth or citizenship. That does not guarantee speed. USCIS still conducts security vetting, may issue requests for evidence, and continues to face large backlogs. If a case was paused under the hold policies, the realistic expectation is that it re-enters ordinary processing, not that it jumps the line.

Applicants who were affected can take several practical steps:

• Confirm that USCIS has your current address and that you have answered every request for evidence or interview notice.
• Keep a dated record of every inquiry: online case status, contact-center calls, e-Requests and congressional inquiries.
• Compare the age of your case against the published processing time for your form and office. A useful self-check is explained in this guide to whether an immigration case is actually stuck.
• If you received a denial that cites the vacated country-specific factors policy, speak with a lawyer promptly about a motion to reopen or reconsider and about deadlines.

When a federal lawsuit for delay may fit

When an agency fails to act on an application for an unreasonable period, two federal tools are commonly used together. The Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. § 1361) lets a district court compel a federal officer to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty. The APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(1)) lets a court "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." Courts often evaluate delay claims using the six "TRAC" factors from Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, which weigh, among other things, whether the agency follows a "rule of reason," whether Congress set a timetable, and whether human health and welfare are at stake. For a detailed walkthrough of how judges apply that test, see this analysis of the TRAC factors in immigration delay cases.

A lawsuit only forces a decision; it cannot force an approval. It also has costs and timing considerations, which our article on the possible outcomes of a mandamus lawsuit describes in more detail. For the procedural steps, see how a writ of mandamus is filed in federal court.

Related developments

The Dorcas ruling is one of several 2026 decisions on how far nationality-based policies can reach. The State Department's separate pause on immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries was vacated by a federal court in New York in August 2026; we explain that case in our article on the immigrant visa pause. Background on the original travel restrictions is available in our overview of the 2025 travel ban.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Dorcas ruling mean my application will be approved?

No. Vacatur removes the policies that froze decisions based on nationality. Your application must still meet every legal requirement and pass normal vetting, and USCIS can still deny it on other grounds.

Does the ruling apply outside Rhode Island?

The court vacated the policies themselves, which is generally understood to have nationwide effect on how USCIS applies them. That effect could change if an appellate court stays or reverses the decision.

Are the travel-ban proclamations still in force?

Yes. The case challenged USCIS's internal policies for adjudicating benefits inside the United States, not the proclamations' restrictions on entry and visas.

Can I still be re-interviewed about an approved benefit?

The First Circuit allowed the re-review policy for approved cases to remain in effect while the appeal proceeds, so re-review is possible. Keep copies of your approval notices and evidence.