On August 24, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California delivered a significant blow to the government's immigration enforcement strategy, issuing a preliminary injunction that orders U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing applications that had been placed on indefinite hold based on applicants' national origin.
The order in Red Eagle Law, L.C., et al. v. Joseph B. Edlow, Case No. 26-cv-04850-CRB, enjoins two USCIS policy memoranda — PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194
— that together had frozen adjudication of immigration benefits for hundreds of thousands of applicants.
The order was signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer
, a senior judge on the Northern District bench.
What the Court Ordered
USCIS is ordered to adjudicate applications in the normal course of USCIS' process.
In practical terms, this means the agency can no longer maintain a blanket hold on pending cases based solely on an applicant's country of birth or citizenship.
The Court also granted plaintiff's motion for class certification
— a critical procedural step that extends the reach of this ruling far beyond the named plaintiffs.
The certified class includes individuals who: (1) are citizens or natives of one or more of the 39 countries listed in Presidential Proclamations 10949 or 10998, or the Palestinian Authority; (2) who are seeking asylum with an I-589 application pending; or (3) otherwise have a benefit application pending with USCIS that is subject to the adjudication hold imposed by USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192
or PM-602-0194.
The class certification is particularly significant because, as earlier courts observed,
prior injunctions protected only the named plaintiffs, not the universe of affected applicants.
Red Eagle Law v. Edlow was specifically designed to achieve classwide relief rather than a patchwork of individual injunctions.
Background: The USCIS 'Hold' Policies
The challenged policies trace back to late 2025 and early 2026.
On December 2, 2025, USCIS released PM-602-0192, titled "Hold and Review of all Pending Asylum Applications and all USCIS Benefit Applications Filed by Aliens from High-Risk Countries."
The memo froze every pending asylum application regardless of nationality and placed an adjudicative hold on all pending immigration benefit requests from nationals of 19 countries listed under Presidential Proclamation 10949.
Then on January 1, 2026, USCIS issued a second memo — PM-602-0194 — expanding the hold to cover additional countries added under Presidential Proclamation 10998.
Presidential Proclamation 10998 fully or partially suspended entry for and visa issuance to nationals of 39 countries, and individuals applying using travel documents issued or endorsed by the Palestinian Authority.
USCIS placed a hold on all pending immigration benefit requests, including adjustment of status, employment authorization, extensions or changes of nonimmigrant status, advance parole renewals, and naturalization applications. The hold has impacted immigration filings for employees already working in valid status in the U.S. — for example, employees in valid H-1B status have been unable to obtain timely work authorization for H-1B status extensions.
A Growing Wave of Judicial Skepticism
The Red Eagle Law ruling is the latest in a series of federal court decisions finding the USCIS hold policies likely or clearly unlawful.
Multiple courts have reached the merits in what amounts to a cluster of spring and summer 2026 rulings — alongside Doe v. Trump in Massachusetts, Varniab v. Edlow in the Northern District of California, and Saghafi v. Edlow in Maryland — with every court concluding the pause is likely unlawful.
The most sweeping prior ruling came on June 5, 2026, in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS.
Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. declared unlawful and vacated four USCIS policies, granting summary judgment in favor of a coalition of nonprofit organizations and labor unions.
The court concluded that "Congress has not empowered USCIS to categorically withhold adjudications of immigration benefits."
The government appealed the Dorcas ruling.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals partially reinstated USCIS's Comprehensive Re-Review Policy for nationals from 39 travel-ban countries, while three other challenged policies — including the benefits hold and asylum suspension — remain blocked.
The First Circuit's decision is an interim ruling while the full appeal proceeds.
Red Eagle Law's Broader Litigation Strategy
Red Eagle Law is lead counsel on three class actions
challenging various aspects of the administration's immigration hold policies.
The Red Eagle Law v. Edlow class-action complaint and petition for a writ of mandamus was filed on May 21, 2026
, seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief.
The firm has argued that the blanket withholding of USCIS adjudications is unlawful because it is based upon the national origin of the applicants or petitioners, because USCIS lacks the legal authority to do such a blanket suspension, and because the blanket suspension violates the Administrative Procedures Act.
The government had filed a motion to dismiss in the case.
A motion to dismiss hearing had been set for August 28, 2026
, but the court issued its injunction and class certification order before that hearing.
What This Means for Affected Applicants
The practical impact of this ruling is substantial. For affected individuals — nationals of the 39 designated countries who have pending green card applications, work permits, asylum claims, naturalization petitions, or other benefit requests — the order means USCIS must resume processing their cases through the agency's standard adjudication pipeline.
USCIS generally handles applications filed by people already in the country, including asylum seekers, immigrants seeking work permits, lawful residents applying for citizenship, and applicants trying to adjust status to permanent residence.
Visa issuance abroad follows a different track. U.S. embassies and consulates process tourist, student, work, and immigrant visas overseas, and those cases can still turn on separate travel-ban rules, consular instructions, waivers, and other litigation.
Applicants should be aware of several important caveats:
- The underlying travel bans remain in effect.
- The government is expected to appeal. Given the administration's aggressive posture in related litigation, including the Dorcas appeal, applicants should anticipate the government may seek an emergency stay of this order.
- Class certification extends protection. Unlike prior individual injunctions, the class certification in this case means affected individuals do not need to file their own lawsuits to benefit from the order — if they fall within the class definition, the injunction applies to them.
Looking Ahead
The Red Eagle Law ruling adds to mounting judicial consensus that USCIS exceeded its authority with the blanket adjudication holds. With class certification now in place, the case has the potential to provide durable, systemwide relief — though the litigation is far from over.
The government has appealed the Dorcas decision enjoining the USCIS holds
, and a similar appeal in this case is widely anticipated. Meanwhile,
other related cases, such as Syed et al. v. Trump in the California Central District challenging a separate 75-country suspension, have hearings scheduled for September 2026.
Applicants from affected countries with pending USCIS cases should consult with an immigration attorney to assess how this ruling applies to their specific circumstances, confirm that USCIS is moving forward on their applications, and prepare for the possibility that the legal landscape could shift again on appeal.
---
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are affected by these policies, contact ClinchLaw or a qualified immigration attorney for guidance specific to your situation.