On August 28, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services confirmed that it is subject to a new federal court order requiring the agency to resume processing immigration applications that had been frozen under two controversial policy memoranda —
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued the order on August 24, 2026, in Red Eagle Law, L.C., et al., v. Joseph B. Edlow, 26-cv-04850-CRB (NDCA), enjoining PM 602-0192 and PM 602-0194
.
The ruling marks the latest — and potentially broadest — judicial repudiation of the administration's nationality-based benefits freeze, which had left hundreds of thousands of immigration applicants in limbo for months.
What the Court Ordered
USCIS is ordered to adjudicate applications in the normal course of the agency's process, and the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
.
The court certified a class of individuals who are citizens or natives of one or more of the 39 countries listed in Presidential Proclamations 10949 or 10998, or the Palestinian Authority, and who are seeking asylum with a pending I-589 application, or who otherwise have a benefit application pending with USCIS that is subject to the adjudication hold imposed by PM-602-0192 or PM-602-0194
.
The court also ordered USCIS to make decisions on the named plaintiffs' applications within 30 days
.
USCIS stated that it "strongly disagrees with the court's order but will follow its terms pending possible further judicial review"
.
The Hold Policies Under Challenge
The two enjoined policy memoranda were central pillars of the administration's "enhanced screening and vetting" framework.
PM-602-0192, dated December 2, 2025, is titled "Hold and Review of all Pending Asylum Applications and all USCIS Benefit Applications Filed by Aliens from High-Risk Countries," while PM-602-0194, dated January 1, 2026, extended that hold to additional countries
.
The memoranda directed USCIS to place a hold on pending benefit requests — including I-765 employment authorization and I-539 change of status applications — for applicants whose country of birth or citizenship was included in Presidential Proclamations 10949 or 10998
.
Presidential Proclamation 10949, issued on June 4, 2025, established a "full" travel ban on 12 countries and a "partial" travel ban on 7 countries
.
The full-ban countries included Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen
.
Proclamation 10998, issued December 16, 2025, added 20 more countries, including a total ban on entry for citizens of Burkina Faso, Laos, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, and Syria, as well as partial bans on nationals of Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia, and Zimbabwe
.
In practical terms,
the pause largely barred USCIS from issuing green cards, work permits, U.S. citizenship, and other benefits to citizens of the affected countries — many of them in Africa and Asia
.
A Growing Wave of Litigation
The Red Eagle Law decision in California is the latest in a growing chain of federal court rulings striking down the hold policies, building on the landmark decision earlier this summer.
On June 5, 2026, a federal judge in Rhode Island blocked the measures in a 135-page opinion, with Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island finding the policies to be "arbitrary and capricious and contrary to federal law"
.
The court concluded that USCIS lacked statutory authority to implement the challenged policies and found them unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act
.
USCIS acknowledged at the time that the vacatur "applies agency-wide" and that PM 602-0192, PM 602-0194, and PA 2025-26 "should be treated as if they are not in effect"
.
The government appealed the Dorcas decision to the First Circuit.
On August 14, 2026, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on the government's emergency stay request, leaving the most consequential parts of the district court's ruling in place — the court declined to stay the vacatur of the Benefits Hold and the Country-Specific Factors Policy
.
However, it granted a limited stay with respect to the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, while the request for stay was otherwise denied
.
The new Red Eagle Law order from the Northern District of California now adds an additional injunction and, critically, a certified class — providing another independent basis for requiring USCIS to process applications in the normal course.
Real-World Impact on Applicants
The human toll of the hold policies has been well documented throughout the litigation.
Due to these policies, hundreds of thousands of people suddenly had their applications put on hold — even if that meant they would lose jobs or their right to remain in the country
.
One plaintiff described in the litigation is a cancer clinical researcher from Myanmar, whose work permit was delayed so long she risked being fired if the agency didn't renew it
.
Despite claims in the initial policies that suggested USCIS would lift these holds and implement new vetting standards within 90 days, nearly all the policies remained fully in effect six months later
.
What This Means for Affected Applicants
For individuals whose applications were caught in the freeze, the Red Eagle Law order provides important relief:
1. Applications must be processed normally. USCIS is now under court order — from multiple federal courts — to adjudicate pending applications without relying on the nationality-based hold policies.
2. Class certification broadens the reach. The certified class definition encompasses anyone from the 39 listed countries or the Palestinian Authority with a pending asylum application, adjustment of status, employment authorization, or other benefit application that was subject to the hold.
3. Named plaintiffs get expedited decisions. The court ordered USCIS to decide the named plaintiffs' cases within 30 days.
However,
the ruling removes the categorical policy barrier — it does not guarantee that every affected file will receive an immediate decision or that USCIS must approve the underlying benefit
.
If USCIS or a case officer explicitly states that an application cannot be adjudicated because of PM 602-0192 or PM 602-0194, applicants should preserve that communication and seek qualified legal advice, as USCIS has publicly stated that those policies should be treated as if they are not in effect
.
The Road Ahead
The litigation landscape remains fluid. The government's appeal in Dorcas v. USCIS continues before the First Circuit, and it is unclear whether the government will seek appellate review of the California order as well.
Multiple other class action lawsuits also have upcoming motions or hearings challenging the policies, including cases in both the Northern and Central Districts of California
.
With the First Circuit having already declined to stay the benefits hold and the country-specific factors policy, and a second federal court now independently enjoining the same memoranda, the legal walls around the administration's nationality-based adjudication freeze continue to close in.
Applicants from the 39 affected countries who have pending immigration applications should consult with an experienced immigration attorney to assess their individual situation and ensure their cases are being processed in compliance with the court orders.
---
ClinchLaw will continue to monitor developments in this case and related litigation. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.