US court blocks Trump's immigration pause for 39 countries: Details

Federal judge orders USCIS to resume processing green cards, work permits and asylum cases put on hold under nationality-based restrictions

A US federal court has struck down a set of Donald Trump administration immigration

policies that had effectively frozen the processing of green cards, work permits, asylum applications and citizenship cases for nationals of 39 countries, marking a significant legal setback for one of the administration's

most restrictive immigration measures.

 

In a ruling issued last week, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the US District Court

for the District of Rhode Island ordered US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing hundreds of thousands of immigration applications that had been placed on hold for months.

 

The decision in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS does not directly affect Indian nationals, as India was not included among the 39 countries covered by the policy. However, immigration lawyers and policy experts say the ruling could have wider implications because it challenges the legality of nationality-based restrictions within the legal immigration system.

 

 

What was the policy?

According to court documents and accounts cited in the judgment, USCIS introduced a series of policies in December 2025 following a fatal shooting involving an Afghan national in Washington, DC.

 

The measures were introduced alongside broader immigration restrictions announced by President Trump and effectively halted immigration benefit processing for nationals of countries covered under an expanded travel ban.

 

Among the policies struck down by the court were:

 

·  A "Benefits Hold Policy" that suspended adjudication of green cards, employment authorisation documents (EADs), naturalisation applications and other immigration benefits.

 

· 

A policy directing officials to treat nationality from one of the affected countries as a significant negative factor during case reviews.

 

· 

A review of previously approved immigration benefits granted to nationals from the affected countries.

 

·  A blanket suspension of asylum decisions by USCIS.

 

As a result, hundreds of thousands of applications reportedly remained pending, with many applicants facing uncertainty over employment, legal status and family reunification.

 

Why did the court intervene?

Judge McConnell concluded that USCIS had exceeded its legal authority by refusing to process applications that Congress had directed the agency to adjudicate.

 

The ruling found that immigration laws require the government to make decisions on applications submitted through lawful channels rather than place them in indefinite suspension.

 

The court also held that the policies were "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act because the government failed to provide a reasoned explanation for applying broad restrictions to nationals of dozens of countries with vastly different security profiles.

 

In particular, the judge questioned the rationale for freezing applications from countries such as Nigeria, Cuba and Venezuela in response to actions allegedly committed by an individual from Afghanistan.

 

The judgment further noted evidence suggesting that the policies were influenced by anti-immigrant rhetoric and nationality-based discrimination, observations that became a significant factor in the court's analysis.

 

Which countries were affected?

The restrictions primarily targeted countries in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and parts of Latin America.

 

Countries subject to the strongest restrictions included Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, among others.

 

Partial restrictions applied to countries including Nigeria, Cuba, Venezuela, Tanzania, Senegal and Zambia.

 

These countries collectively formed the basis of the USCIS benefits suspension policy that has now been blocked. 

What does this mean for immigrants?

The ruling takes effect immediately unless a higher court intervenes.

 

For affected applicants, this means USCIS must restart processing applications that had been sitting untouched for months despite applicants paying filing fees and complying with legal requirements.

 

Immigrant rights organisations have described the judgment as a major victory because it restores access to routine immigration processing for people who had been left in administrative limbo.

 

The court's order, however, does not affect separate restrictions imposed by the US State Department. A pause on certain immigrant visa issuances abroad and the broader travel and entry restrictions remain in place.

 

Why should Indians pay attention?

Although India is not among the affected countries, the ruling could still be relevant for Indian professionals, students and families navigating the US immigration system.

 

Thousands of Indians continue to face lengthy waits for employment-based green cards under the EB-2 and EB-3 categories because of per-country limits. While the case does not address those backlogs, it reinforces the principle that immigration authorities cannot arbitrarily stop processing legally filed applications without statutory authority.

 

The judgment may also influence future legal challenges if nationality-based restrictions are expanded or applied to other categories of immigrants.

 

What happens next?

The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling. It may seek an emergency stay from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to prevent the order from taking effect while litigation continues.

 

If no stay is granted, USCIS will be required to continue processing applications from affected nationals while the legal battle moves through the appellate courts.

 

For now, the court's decision represents one of the most significant judicial rebukes of recent US immigration restrictions and restores immigration processing for hundreds of thousands of applicants whose cases had been frozen

solely because of their nationality.