A federal judge on Thursday issued a direct compliance order against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services after the agency appeared to spend a full week ignoring a court ruling that had struck down the freeze on green cards, work permits, and asylum determinations for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from 39 countries — and within hours the Trump administration filed an appeal to the First Circuit, leaving affected applicants in renewed uncertainty.
Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, whose June 5 ruling in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS had vacated four separate USCIS directives under the Administrative Procedure Act, gave the agency 24 hours to submit a written report detailing how it was complying. "There is no excuse this time; the Government has an obligation to immediately comply with this Order," McConnell wrote, describing the vacated policies as void, annulled, and of no effect.
The urgency followed an emergency filing Wednesday by immigrant advocacy groups and labor organizations — including the Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island and African Communities Together — who told the court that USCIS had continued to rely on the now-invalidated policies for seven days without change. Policy documents remained published and unchanged on the agency's website. Applications for citizenship, green cards, and work permits were still being withheld, the groups said, in clear violation of the June 5 order.
Vacatur Under APA: Why a Court Order Cannot Be Quietly Appealed Around
The core legal principle at stake in Thursday's compliance order is one that distinguishes a temporary restraining order from a vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act. When Judge McConnell vacated the four USCIS directives on June 5, he was not placing a hold on those policies pending appeal — he was declaring them void from the moment of ruling. Under the APA, a vacatur eliminates the legal authority behind an agency policy immediately and completely; the agency cannot elect to keep enforcing a voided rule while it considers its appellate options.
The administration's response — filing an appeal to the First Circuit on Friday — does not by itself restore the authority to enforce the vacated policies. To do that legally, the government would need to seek and obtain a separate stay from either Judge McConnell or the First Circuit itself, and no such stay had been granted as of Friday afternoon.
Legal observers noted that the administration's posture — continuing to enforce policies the court had declared void while simultaneously appealing — was consistent with a pattern of post-ruling non-compliance that federal courts had increasingly called out in immigration contexts throughout 2026.
Four Policies Struck Down, Processing Must Resume for Nationals of 39 Countries
The June 5 ruling vacated four USCIS directives that had been in place since late 2025, when the agency halted adjudications for nationals from the 39 countries following a December 2025 presidential proclamation expanding the administration's travel ban:
The Benefits Hold Policy froze all employment authorization document renewals, green card adjudications, naturalization applications, and other immigration benefit filings for nationals of the 39 countries designated as "high risk," including Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, and 36 others. The Global Asylum Hold Policy suspended all asylum and withholding-of-removal adjudications regardless of country of origin. A Country-Specific Factors directive instructed USCIS officers to treat an applicant's nationality alone as a significant negative factor in any discretionary decision. A Comprehensive Re-Review Policy ordered USCIS to re-examine and potentially rescind previously approved benefits for affected nationals who had entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021.
Judge McConnell found all four policies unlawful on multiple grounds under the APA, concluding that USCIS had claimed statutory authority Congress never granted it, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the freeze, disregarded the reliance interests of hundreds of thousands of applicants who had already filed and paid fees under existing rules, and relied on national security justifications that the court found were pretextual. "In ruling on these motions," McConnell wrote, "the Court is reminded of a line often repeated in discussions around immigration policy: If people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to 'follow the law' and 'do things the right way.' This case serves as a perfect example of immigrants doing just that."
Who Is Affected: Hundreds of Thousands With Applications in Bureaucratic Limbo
The Rhode Island ruling applies nationwide and covers every applicant whose case had been frozen under the four vacated policies — a population the court acknowledged runs into the hundreds of thousands. The 39 countries include Afghanistan, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe, among others.
Applicants in these categories are specifically covered: those with pending Form I-485 adjustment of status green card applications, those whose employment authorization documents had lapsed during the freeze, naturalization applicants, asylum seekers, and those who had previously received approved I-140 immigrant visa petitions and were waiting for their priority dates to become current in the State Department's Visa Bulletin.
For workers whose employment authorization documents expired during the freeze and who lost their jobs as a result, Thursday's compliance order is especially significant. Many had been waiting since December 2025 — more than six months — for any resolution. The court documented that the freeze had caused applicants to lose work authorization, jobs, and in some cases lawful immigration status itself, after years or decades of maintaining compliance.
The Maryland ruling in Saghafi v. Edlow — issued in late April 2026 by U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III and covering 83 named plaintiffs — had already established the same legal principle in a narrower form: USCIS "does not have discretion to decide not to adjudicate at all."
What the Rulings Do Not Do
Immigration attorneys and advocacy groups have been careful to explain what these rulings do not guarantee. Neither Judge McConnell nor Judge Russell ordered USCIS to approve any application — only to process them on the merits. Applicants must still satisfy all statutory eligibility requirements, clear enhanced vetting protocols in place for 2026, and pass identity and criminal background screenings that are now standard.
The travel bans themselves remain fully in force. Nationals of the 39 affected countries may still be barred from entering or re-entering the United States under the presidential proclamations — meaning that applicants who leave the country while their applications are pending face serious risks. The State Department has separately paused immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries, so consular processing abroad is not a reliable alternative for many affected applicants even if USCIS ultimately declines to adjudicate a domestic filing.
A separate USCIS policy memorandum issued May 21, 2026 — PM-602-0199 — was not the subject of either court ruling and remains in effect. That memo directs officers to treat adjustment of status as a rare, discretionary benefit rather than a routine administrative step, potentially affecting millions of green card applicants regardless of nationality. Immigration experts at the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association warned the policy could worsen consular backlogs and expose some immigrants to multi-year bars from re-entering the country if they are required to leave for overseas processing.
Part of a Broader Pattern: Courts Consistently Reject Indefinite Non-Adjudication
The green card processing rulings are part of a larger wave of judicial pushback against the administration's legal immigration policies that accelerated throughout 2026. On June 8 — three days after the Rhode Island ruling — U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin in Massachusetts struck down the Trump administration's $100,000 supplemental fee on H-1B visa petitions in California et al. v. Trump, finding that the administration had imposed an unconstitutional tax that only Congress has authority to levy. The ruling provided significant relief to U.S. technology and healthcare companies that had effectively stopped sponsoring new foreign workers because of the $100,000 surcharge.
A third ruling earlier in 2026, from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick in Massachusetts, had issued a preliminary injunction covering approximately 200 plaintiffs from 20 countries including Iran, Haiti, Venezuela, and Syria.
Legal analysts at the Cato Institute described the string of defeats as a judicial repudiation of what they characterized as the most restrictive legal immigration posture in a century. The consistent thread across all three rulings is the same principle McConnell and Russell articulated: there is a legal difference between an agency's authority to carefully vet applicants and the authority to freeze all decisions indefinitely, without a reasoned explanation, for everyone born in a particular country.
What Affected Applicants and Their Employers Should Do Now
For applicants who fall within the scope of the rulings, the practical picture shifted significantly on Thursday — but remains complicated. The compliance order is now in effect, and USCIS must demonstrate to the court by Friday how it is implementing the June 5 vacatur. But the Trump administration's appeal to the First Circuit means that a higher court could potentially grant a stay of the rulings while the appeal is decided, which would put the freeze back in place.
Immigration attorneys advising affected clients recommend the following immediate steps: checking current USCIS case status through the online portal for any movement; contacting the congressional offices of House and Senate members to request status inquiries on stalled cases; not withdrawing any pending application in anticipation of switching to consular processing abroad; and consulting an immigration attorney before any international travel, given the ongoing travel ban and the risk of multi-year re-entry bars.
For employers, the practical risk is sharper: a worker whose employment authorization document has expired cannot lawfully continue employment regardless of the fact that a renewal is pending and a court has ordered USCIS to process it. Employers should review their I-9 employment eligibility verification records for any employees from the 39 affected countries whose documents may have lapsed during the six-month freeze.
"If USCIS is failing to comply with orders from the judiciary, no one knows what this means for this country going forward," a spokesperson for Project Unpause, an advocacy organization that supported the case, said Friday. The group compared the experience of affected applicants to paying for items at a store and having the store collect the money, complete a background check, and then indefinitely refuse to hand over the goods — not because anything was wrong with the customer, but because of where the customer's family came from.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the court ruling mean my green card application from one of the 39 countries will now be approved?
No. The court ordered USCIS to process applications — not to approve them. Applicants must still satisfy all statutory eligibility requirements, pass security vetting, and clear criminal background screenings. What changed is that USCIS can no longer leave applications frozen without deciding them; officers must now adjudicate cases on their individual merits rather than placing them on indefinite hold based solely on the applicant's country of birth.
Which countries are covered by the USCIS 39-country travel ban freeze?
The 39 countries designated as "high risk" under the administration's expanded travel ban include Afghanistan, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Eritrea, The Gambia, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, among others. The freeze covered nationals of all 39 countries for green cards, work permits, asylum, and naturalization, plus applicants holding Palestinian Authority documentation.
Does the court ruling cancel the travel ban itself?
No. The travel ban — which restricts entry into the United States — remains fully in force. The ruling addressed only USCIS's internal policy of refusing to adjudicate applications for people already inside the country. Nationals of the 39 countries who travel internationally still face significant restrictions on re-entry, and the State Department has separately paused immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries.
What is adjustment of status, and does PM-602-0199 still affect my case?
Adjustment of status is the process that allows foreign nationals already inside the United States to apply for a green card without leaving the country. USCIS policy memo PM-602-0199, issued May 21, 2026 and still in effect, reframes adjustment of status as a discretionary benefit reserved for extraordinary circumstances — meaning officers have more latitude to deny domestic filings and direct applicants to consular processing abroad. That memo was not challenged in the Rhode Island or Maryland cases and remains operative regardless of Thursday's compliance order.
ⓒ 2026 TECHTIMES.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
