On August 24, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California delivered another significant blow to the federal government's nationality-based immigration processing holds, granting both a preliminary injunction and class certification in Red Eagle Law, L.C., et al. v. Joseph B. Edlow.
The order, issued by Judge Charles R. Breyer in case number 26-cv-04850-CRB, enjoins USCIS Policy Memoranda PM 602-0192 and PM 602-0194
— the two directives that had placed indefinite holds on benefit applications filed by nationals from dozens of designated countries.
Under the ruling, USCIS is ordered to adjudicate applications in the normal course of its processing
, effectively prohibiting the agency from continuing to freeze cases based solely on an applicant's country of origin.
A Broad Class Certified
Perhaps most significant for affected applicants is the scope of the class the court certified.
The class covers 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.
This means the ruling extends relief not just to the named plaintiffs, but to the entire category of applicants who have been caught in a processing limbo — potentially tens of thousands of individuals whose green card applications, work permits, naturalization petitions, and asylum cases had been frozen indefinitely.
The Policies at Issue
The challenged policies trace their origins to two presidential proclamations.
Presidential Proclamation 10949, signed on June 4, 2025, established a "full" travel ban on 12 countries and a "partial" travel ban on 7 countries.
Presidential Proclamation 10998, issued on December 16, 2025, modified and expanded those lists, becoming effective on January 1, 2026.
Taken together, the United States 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.
The full-ban countries under Proclamation 10949 included Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
Proclamation 10998 added Burkina Faso, Laos, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, and Syria to the full-ban list
, while
imposing partial bans on nationals from Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
USCIS then issued the two policy memoranda at the heart of this case.
PM-602-0192, issued December 2, 2025, and PM-602-0194, issued January 1, 2026
,
placed an indefinite freeze on processing critical benefits — including adjustments of status, Employment Authorization Documents, and naturalization — for nationals of the 39 designated countries.
Red Eagle Law has argued that the blanket withholding of USCIS adjudications is unlawful because it is based upon the national origin of the applicants, because USCIS lacks the legal authority to impose such a blanket suspension, and because the suspension violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
Part of a Growing Wave of Judicial Pushback
The Red Eagle Law ruling is far from the first federal court order to strike at these hold policies.
Multiple courts have already issued injunctions enjoining the holds, including Varniab v. Edlow (N.D. Cal.) and Bowser v. Edlow (D. Mass.)
, among others.
Most notably,
the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island in Dorcas Int'l Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS vacated the benefits hold policy, global asylum hold policy, comprehensive re-review policy, and country-specific factors policy on June 5, 2026.
That 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.
In Dorcas, the court found that these policies violated the APA, and although the suit was brought by nonprofit organizations and labor unions, the decision had nationwide impact and applied to all pending cases.
However, the government has fought back.
On June 12, the government filed an appeal of the adverse district court decision with the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
And in a notable August 14 development,
the First Circuit partially reinstated USCIS's Comprehensive Re-Review Policy while leaving three other challenged policies — including the benefits hold and asylum suspension — blocked.
This evolving appellate landscape helps explain why the Red Eagle Law class-action ruling matters: it provides an additional layer of judicial protection for affected applicants even as the Dorcas decision faces appellate scrutiny.
What This Means for Affected Applicants
Red Eagle Law is serving as lead counsel on three class actions
challenging various aspects of the hold framework, reflecting the breadth of the legal challenge to these policies.
For applicants from the 39 listed countries and the Palestinian Authority, the practical implications are significant:
- Pending benefit applications — including I-485 adjustment of status cases, I-765 work permit applications, N-400 naturalization petitions, and I-589 asylum applications — should now be processed in the normal course rather than held indefinitely.
- Class certification means that relief extends automatically to all qualifying applicants, not just those who individually filed suit. Applicants do not need to take any specific legal action to be covered by the class.
- The injunction is preliminary, meaning the case will continue to be litigated on the merits. The government may seek to appeal or obtain a stay of this order, as it has done in the Dorcas case.
Looking Ahead
The legal landscape remains fluid.
The First Circuit's partial stay in Dorcas is an interim ruling while the full appeal proceeds
, and the government has shown a pattern of vigorously contesting each adverse court order.
A separate Red Eagle Law class action, Syed et al. v. Trump, challenging the 75-country suspension in the Central District of California, has a hearing set for September 21 with Judge John A. Kronstadt.
Applicants affected by these policies should consult with experienced immigration counsel to understand how these overlapping court orders affect their specific cases. While the trajectory of federal court decisions has been strongly in favor of applicants, the possibility of appellate reversal or stays means that the situation could change.
USCIS has posted notice of the court order on its newsroom alerts page, consistent with its prior practice of acknowledging court orders in this line of litigation.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are affected by USCIS hold policies, contact ClinchLaw or a qualified immigration attorney to discuss your individual case.