By Marjan Kasra
On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued one of the most significant immigration decisions so far this year, striking down four USCIS policies that had delayed, suspended, or subjected immigration applications to extraordinary review based on factors including nationality and country of origin.
The decision came in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, et al. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., No. 1:26-cv-00132-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. June 5, 2026).
While some early reports suggested that the court had struck down the Administration’s travel ban itself, that is not what happened.
Instead, the court targeted the mechanism USCIS used to implement portions of those restrictions through its internal adjudication practices. In doing so, the court delivered a major setback to USCIS policies that had left many applicants waiting indefinitely for decisions on immigration benefits they were otherwise eligible to receive.
What was challenged?
The lawsuit challenged four USCIS policies:
- Global Asylum Hold Policy
- Benefits Hold Policy
- Comprehensive Re-Review Policy
- Country-Specific Factors Policy
According to the court, these policies resulted in widespread adjudication delays, adjudication holds, and heightened review procedures affecting asylum applicants as well as many applicants from countries subject to the Administration’s travel-related restrictions.
The policies affected a broad range of immigration benefits, including:
- Adjustment of Status applications
- Employment Authorization applications
- Asylum applications
- Naturalization applications
- Other immigration benefits administered by USCIS
For many applicants, the result was prolonged uncertainty despite having properly filed applications and satisfied all statutory requirements.
Why did the court strike down the policies?
Judge McConnell concluded that USCIS exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The court found that USCIS claimed powers not granted by Congress, failed to adequately justify the challenged policies, failed to consider the reliance interests of affected applicants, and adopted policies that were inconsistent with the governing immigration statutes.
As a result, the court held that the policies were unlawful and arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
Notably, the court did not merely require USCIS to reconsider the policies. The court vacated all four policies and declared them unlawful. At the same time, the court declined to issue a permanent injunction, concluding that vacatur and declaratory relief provided an adequate remedy.
Does this mean the travel ban has been struck down?
No.
This distinction is critical.
The court did not invalidate the Presidential Proclamation underlying the travel restrictions. Nor did it eliminate all Department of State visa issuance restrictions or other government actions that may continue to affect nationals of designated countries.
Instead, the court focused specifically on USCIS’s internal adjudication policies.
The ruling means USCIS may no longer rely on the four challenged policies that the court found unlawful.
That is a significant development, but it is not the same thing as eliminating every travel-related restriction that may still exist elsewhere in the immigration system.
Who stands to benefit most?
The individuals most likely to benefit are those with pending USCIS applications inside the United States whose cases may have been affected by the challenged policies.
This includes:
- Adjustment of Status (AOS) applicants
- Employment Authorization applicants
- Naturalization applicants
- Certain asylum applicants
- Other applicants whose cases may have been delayed by the challenged USCIS policies
The decision may also prove particularly important for investors and professionals from affected countries who have experienced lengthy delays in USCIS adjudications.
For EB-5 investors pursuing AOS, Employment Authorization Documents, Advance Parole, or related benefits, the ruling reinforces a fundamental principle: immigration benefits must be adjudicated under the framework established by Congress, not through unlawful agency-created hold policies.
To the extent that pending cases were delayed due to the challenged policies, applicants may now see renewed progress on their cases.
Why this matters for EB-5 investors
For the EB-5 community, the decision may carry particular significance. Since the enactment of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA), many investors have pursued concurrent filing of Form I-526E and Adjustment of Status applications while remaining in the United States.
Those investors often rely on timely adjudication of Employment Authorization Documents, Advance Parole, and AOS applications while their immigrant petitions remain pending. Delays affecting any one of those benefits can create significant uncertainty for investors and their families.
To the extent any of those applications were affected by the challenged USCIS policies, the court’s ruling may remove an obstacle that contributed to prolonged adjudication delays and may help restore the individualized review contemplated by the immigration laws enacted by Congress.
The decision is particularly noteworthy for EB-5 investors from affected countries who may have experienced delays in AOS, Employment Authorization, Advance Parole, or other USCIS benefits while pursuing permanent residence through the EB-5 program. While the ruling does not guarantee approvals or immediate adjudication, it reinforces the principle that immigration benefits should be adjudicated based on the facts and law applicable to each case, rather than by broad agency-imposed hold policies lacking statutory authorization.
What about consular processing?
The impact on consular processing remains uncertain.
The Department of State was not the primary focus of the challenged USCIS policies. As a result, individuals pursuing immigrant visas abroad should not assume that consular officers are immediately prohibited from applying existing travel-related restrictions, Presidential Proclamations, or visa issuance procedures.
Additional litigation may be necessary before the full impact of this ruling on overseas visa processing becomes clear.
For now, the most immediate and direct effect appears to be on USCIS adjudications occurring within the United States.
What happens next?
The government has several options.
First, the Department of Justice may seek an emergency stay of the district court’s ruling.
Second, the government may appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Third, because of the national importance of the issues involved, eventual review by the United States Supreme Court remains a realistic possibility.
Finally, USCIS may attempt to develop revised policies designed to address the deficiencies
identified by the court while continuing to pursue the Administration’s stated national security objectives.
Why this decision matters
This ruling does not strike down the travel ban itself.
What it does do is prohibit USCIS from continuing to rely on four policies that the court determined were unlawful.
For many immigrants, employers, investors, and families, that distinction could be enormously important.
Applications that may have been trapped in administrative limbo could now move forward under the ordinary statutory framework established by Congress.
Whether the ruling ultimately survives appeal remains to be seen. The government may seek a stay, pursue appellate review, or attempt to replace the challenged policies with new procedures.
Nevertheless, the decision represents a major victory for affected immigrants and a significant limitation on USCIS’s ability to impose broad adjudication hold policies without clear authorization from Congress.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article are solely the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the publisher, its employees. or its affiliates. The information found on this website is intended to be general information; it is not legal or financial advice. Specific legal or financial advice can only be given by a licensed professional with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances of your particular situation. You should seek consultation with legal, immigration, and financial experts prior to participating in the EB-5 program Posting a question on this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. All questions you post will be available to the public; do not include confidential information in your question.
