On August 24, 2026, the immigration legal landscape shifted once more when
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and granting their motion for a preliminary injunction. The order was signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer.
The ruling in Red Eagle Law, L.C., et al. v. Joseph B. Edlow
enjoined USCIS Policy Memoranda PM 602-0192 and PM 602-0194
, the twin directives that have frozen the processing of immigration benefit applications for nationals of dozens of countries since late 2025.
USCIS is now ordered to adjudicate applications in the normal course of USCIS' process.
Four days later, on August 28, USCIS published an alert acknowledging the decision.
The agency stated that it "strongly disagrees with the Court's order but will follow its terms pending possible further judicial review."
The alert also confirmed that USCIS must make decisions on the named plaintiffs' applications within 30 days.
What the Court Ordered
The most significant aspect of the ruling is the breadth of the certified class.
The court certified a class of 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) are seeking asylum with an I-589 application pending; or (3) otherwise have a benefit application pending with USCIS; (4) that is subject to the adjudication hold imposed by PM-602-0192 (Dec. 2, 2025) or PM-602-0194 (Jan. 1, 2026) that has not received final adjudication as of the date of class certification.
This expansive class definition means the injunction does not merely benefit the named plaintiffs — it reaches every applicant from one of the 39 designated countries whose case was stuck in the hold pipeline.
Background: How the Hold Policies Worked
On December 2, 2025, USCIS issued a "hold and review" policy memorandum directing officers to place holds on certain asylum applications and benefit requests and conduct a "comprehensive re-review" of benefit requests for certain foreign nationals from 19 identified "high-risk" countries.
Then on January 1, 2026, USCIS issued a new "Hold and Review" policy memorandum (PM-602-0194) that dramatically expanded the immigration benefits pause to affect nationals from 39 countries
and required a retroactive review of previously approved benefits.
This meant that almost all immigration benefits, including H-1B petitions, O-1 petitions, Adjustment of Status green card applications, employment authorization applications, and asylum applications filed by citizens or individuals born in one of the identified countries were indefinitely paused.
With no updates and no timeline for adjudication, many applicants lost their permission to work and/or ability to maintain their lawful status in the United States.
The affected countries include Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burkina Faso, Laos, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Syria, and nationals using Palestinian Authority travel documents, among others.
An additional tier of partial-ban countries was also included.
A Growing Judicial Consensus
The Red Eagle Law ruling is only the latest — and potentially the most consequential — in a growing line of federal court decisions striking down the hold policies.
On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island in Dorcas Int'l Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS vacated USCIS' Benefits Hold Policy, Global Asylum Hold Policy, Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, and Country-Specific Factors Policy.
The district court concluded that USCIS exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act by effectively freezing immigration benefits through internal policy directives rather than lawful rulemaking.
When the government sought a stay of that ruling,
the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island denied the government's motion to stay the decision pending appeal.
The case then went to the First Circuit, which
on August 14, 2026, issued its decision on the government's emergency stay request, leaving the most consequential parts of the district court's ruling in place. In a unanimous order, the court declined to stay the vacatur of the Benefits Hold and the Country-Specific Factors Policy.
The Red Eagle Law ruling is one of a cluster of spring-and-summer 2026 rulings — alongside Doe v. Trump in Massachusetts and Varniab v. Edlow in the Northern District of California — in which every court to reach the merits has found the pause likely unlawful. The convergence is notable: three different districts, three different judges, three different plaintiff groups, one conclusion.
Why Class Certification Matters
Individual injunctions — while valuable to the specific plaintiffs who obtain them — create a patchwork of relief that leaves most affected applicants without a remedy.
That uniformity across courts is exactly what the plaintiffs in the putative class action pointed to in arguing that classwide relief is appropriate rather than a patchwork of individual injunctions.
With class certification now granted, the court's order extends to all applicants meeting the class definition, regardless of whether they are named plaintiffs or even aware of the litigation. This effectively compels USCIS to resume normal-course adjudication for the entire affected population.
Practical Implications for Applicants
Applicants from the 39 affected countries who have pending benefit applications with USCIS should be aware of several key points:
- The injunction means adjudication, not automatic approval.
- Named plaintiffs have a 30-day timeline.
- The situation remains fluid.
- Consult an attorney. Applicants whose cases were paused should work with qualified immigration counsel to monitor their case status and ensure they are responsive to any USCIS requests for evidence or interview notices that may follow the resumption of processing.
What Comes Next
The government's options include seeking an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit or pursuing an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order. Given the administration's track record of vigorous appellate challenges — as seen in the Dorcas appeal currently before the First Circuit — further litigation is virtually certain.
However, the legal terrain is increasingly challenging for the government. With multiple federal courts across different jurisdictions reaching the same conclusion — that USCIS lacks authority to impose blanket nationality-based holds on benefit adjudications — the administration faces a growing wall of adverse precedent.
For the thousands of applicants whose lives have been in limbo since December 2025, the Red Eagle Law class certification offers a broader safety net than any prior ruling. It transforms what had been a series of individual victories into systemic relief — though the durability of that relief will depend on how the appellate courts respond.
ClinchLaw will continue to monitor developments in this case and related litigation. Applicants affected by the hold policies should consult with an immigration attorney to understand how these rulings apply to their individual circumstances.