U.S. District Court Vacates 3 USCIS Directives Related to Nationals of “Countries of Concern” and Asylum Applicants

USCIS has issued a June 12 alert, “Court Order on Hold Policies.” This alert advises that on June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued an order in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, et al. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., 26-cv-00132-JJM-PAS (D.RI.), vacating the following USCIS directives:

  • PM 602-0192 and PM 602-0194: These policy memos required:
    • Benefits Hold Policy: Hold and review of certain benefit requests by applicants from “countries of concern.”
    • Comprehensive Re-Review Policy: Re-review of approved benefit requests by applicants from “countries of concern” who entered the U.S. on or after Jan. 20, 2021.
    • Global Asylum Hold Policy: This required “hold” and “review” of all asylum applications regardless of the applicant’s nationality.
  • PA 2025-26: This Country-Specific Factors Policy required that, for nationals from a “country of concern” applying for discretionary immigration benefits, USCIS will consider as a “significant negative factor” the country’s insufficient vetting and screening information shared with the United States.

Those directives are discussed in our firm’s article, Following National Guard Shooting, Immigration Restrictions Imposed on Afghans, Nationals of 39 “Countries of Concern”, and Asylum Applicants (Jan. 1 Update).

The Court entered its final judgment on June 11, 2026. The order went into effect immediately.

USCIS states that it “strongly disagrees with the Court’s order but will follow its terms pending possible further judicial review.” So, USCIS states, those directives should be treated as if they are not in effect.

On June 12, USCIS filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Our firm will keep clients apprised of developments in the pending litigation.

2 responses to “U.S. District Court Vacates 3 USCIS Directives Related to Nationals of “Countries of Concern” and Asylum Applicants”

  1. Linda Wong Avatar
    Linda Wong

    Awesome

  2. Anna Avatar
    Anna

    What stood out to me is how the ruling reinforces the idea that immigration policies must follow established legal procedures, even when national security concerns are involved. The fact that these directives affected not only applicants from designated countries but also asylum seekers more broadly makes the court’s reasoning particularly important.

    I also appreciated the clear explanation of the three vacated policies and their practical impact on people whose applications had been placed on hold or subjected to additional scrutiny. For many applicants, these delays created uncertainty that could last for months, affecting families, employment, and long-term plans.

    At the same time, it’s worth noting that the legal process is far from over, especially with the government’s appeal already underway. It will be interesting to see how higher courts address the balance between agency discretion, national security considerations, and procedural fairness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *