USCIS lifts nationwide ‘benefits hold’ after court finds policies unlawful

In a late-day statement on 16 June, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services confirmed that it will resume adjudicating thousands of paused immigration applications after a Rhode Island district-court ruling struck down four internal “hold” policies that had effectively frozen processing for nationals of 39 countries since January 2026. Although USCIS said it “strongly disagrees” with the decision, it will comply while considering an appeal. Background: The now-vacated policies—dubbed the Global Asylum Hold, Benefits Hold, Comprehensive Re-Review and Country-Specific Factors memos—were adopted under Executive Order 14189 as a security measure. In practical terms, they stopped movement on adjustment-of-status, work-permit, naturalisation and certain asylum cases, leaving employers unable to onboard foreign hires and families in legal limbo. Advocacy groups challenged the freezes as ultra vires and discriminatory. Key points of the ruling: Chief Judge John McConnell held that immigration statutes require USCIS to decide cases within statutory time frames and that the agency cannot suspend benefits wholesale without congressional authorisation. The decision applies nationwide because the court issued a vacatur rather than a limited injunction. What applicants should expect: USCIS offices have begun issuing internal instructions to “unpause” affected files; practitioners report the first electronic case updates occurring overnight. Backlogs remain significant, so realistic processing times will depend on field-office capacity. Attorneys urge clients to update addresses, monitor case portals and be ready to respond quickly to requests for evidence that may be generated as files move forward. Implications for business: Employers with green-card sponsorships caught in the hold—especially STEM workers from Nigeria, Pakistan and Iran—should revisit onboarding timelines and consider interim work-authorisation strategies such as cap-exempt H-1Bs or parole-in-place. The case highlights the power of litigation to check executive immigration actions and may spur similar challenges to other processing slow-downs.