USCIS Freeze on 39 Countries Blocked: What’s Next

By Lay Soler

July 17, 2026

Close-up of a polished wooden judge's gavel with a brass band above its sound block inside a blurred courtroom

Summary

A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that USCIS broke the law when it froze immigration decisions for people from 39 countries. If you’re from one of the affected countries, your case should be moving again, but the situation is still changing. Here’s everything you need to know.

What Was This USCIS Freeze on 39 Countries, Exactly?

Starting in late November 2025, USCIS (the agency that handles green cards, citizenship, asylum, and work permits inside the U.S.) quietly put a hold on deciding cases for people from a growing list of countries. By January 2026, that list had grown to 39 countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East.

This wasn’t one policy — it was four:

  • The Benefits Hold Policy— froze final decisions on green cards, work permits, and citizenship for people from the 39 listed countries.
  • The Global Asylum Hold Policy — froze asylum decisions for everyone, regardless of nationality.
  • The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy — required USCIS to go back and re-check immigration benefits it had already approved for people from those 39 countries who entered the U.S. since January 2021.
  • The Country-Specific Factors Policy — told USCIS officers to treat someone’s nationality from one of these countries as an automatic strike against them when making discretionary decisions.

Importantly, these weren’t denials. Applications weren’t rejected outright. They were simply left sitting, unopened or unresolved, sometimes for many months, even after people had paid their fees, gone to interviews, and completed background checks.

Why Did the Government Do This?

The administration pointed to a tragic event. In late November 2025, two National Guard members stationed in Washington, D.C. were shot. Prosecutors say the shooting was carried out by Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan immigrant who had been granted asylum. Lakanwal has pleaded not guilty.

In the aftermath, President Trump said on social media that he wanted to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover.” He then expanded the list of countries subject to full or partial travel bans to 39 nations. Countries facing full travel bans included Afghanistan, Iran, Haiti, Somalia, Venezuela, and Syria. The administration has defended the restrictions on vetting and security grounds.

USCIS then built its own internal freeze on top of that travel ban list, pausing benefit decisions for people from all 39 countries, regardless of how long they’d already been living legally in the U.S.

What the Judge Decided

On June 5, 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., based in Providence, Rhode Island, ruled that all four of these USCIS policies were illegal. His decision, 135 pages long, didn’t pull punches.

He wrote:

“USCIS’s hold on adjudications cannot be attributed to anything that these individuals did wrong; rather, it arises solely by the happenstance of their birth.”

He also said the freeze “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo.”

And on the legal principle at stake, he didn’t mince words: “the rule of law has to apply to everyone equally and, as evident here, USCIS has neither ‘followed the law’ nor ‘done things the right way.’ Indeed, the agency has violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering, as well as the administrative laws that govern the agency’s actions.”

Skye Perryman, head of Democracy Forward, the legal group representing the plaintiffs, welcomed the decision: “This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from.”

A spokesperson for DHS did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment on the day of the ruling.

A few specific findings from the ruling about the USCIS Freeze on 39 Countries stand out

  • USCIS didn’t have the legal authority to do this. Federal law says USCIS “shall” decide applications in regular order. The judge found the agency simply couldn’t refuse to ever make a decision.
  • There was no real connection between the stated reason and the policy’s reach.
  • The judge questioned why a violent act allegedly committed by one person from Afghanistan justified freezing applications for people from 38 completely unrelated countries, including places like Cuba, Venezuela, and Nigeria.
  • The “national security” justification looked like a pretext. The judge pointed to a telling detail: about a month after freezing benefits for “national security,” USCIS carved out exceptions for athletes coming for the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympics. If a security risk can disappear for a soccer player, the judge reasoned, it probably wasn’t really about security.
  • The administration’s own public comments mattered. McConnell noted comments from President Trump and former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem made right after the shooting, including a Trump social media post calling refugees “the leading cause of social dysfunction in America.” The judge wrote it was impossible to ignore that backdrop.

Important: this ruling did not strike down the travel ban itself. The entry restrictions for people applying from outside the U.S. are still in place. What the judge blocked was a separate, internal USCIS practice that froze benefits for people who were often already living legally inside the United States.

What Happened After the Ruling (This Is the Part That Matters Most)

This is where things get complicated, and it’s important you understand the full timeline if your case has been affected.

June 5, 2026 — Judge McConnell issues his ruling, vacating all four policies.

The following week — USCIS doesn’t immediately act. Instead of resuming case decisions, the government asked the court for “clarification,” and the policies appeared to remain in effect on the ground. The administration argued the order hadn’t technically taken legal effect yet.

June 11, 2026 — USCIS still hadn’t visibly changed course, so Judge McConnell issued a sharper follow-up order. He stated plainly that USCIS’s policies were “no longer in effect,” and gave the agency just 24 hours to report back on exactly what it was doing to comply. In his words:

“There is no excuse this time. The Government has an obligation to immediately comply with this Order.”

June 12, 2026 — USCIS responded right at the deadline, and two things happened the same day:

  1. USCIS publicly acknowledged the ruling and said it would stop enforcing the frozen policies, while making clear it “strongly disagrees” with the court’s decision and would comply only “pending possible further judicial review.”
  2. USCIS simultaneously filed a formal appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, asking a higher court to reverse the ruling.

This was the clearest signal yet that the agency would, for now, actually resume processing, even while making clear it still believes the original policy was legal. 

As of this writing, no stay has been granted by either the district court or the First Circuit. That means the freeze legally has no force right now — but the government could still ask for a stay at any point, which would temporarily pause the ruling and bring the freeze back while the appeal plays out.

What USCIS Has Actually Done So Far

Here’s the honest picture, based on what’s publicly known:

  • USCIS has said, in writing, that the three policy memos behind the freeze (PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and a related policy alert) should be treated agency-wide as if they’re no longer in effect.
  • The agency has not issued detailed new guidance to its officers explaining exactly how to handle the backlog of frozen cases.
  • Multiple immigration law firms monitoring the situation closely have reported that, despite USCIS’s official statements, they have not yet seen a clear, consistent speed-up in actual decisions being issued on previously frozen cases.
  • USCIS has appealed, so the agency has made clear it still believes its original policy was legal, even while complying with the court order for now.

In plain terms: USCIS says the freeze is over, but on-the-ground evidence of cases actually moving is still limited and inconsistent. This is a “wait and verify” situation, not a “problem solved” situation.

What This Means If You’re Waiting on a Citizenship Interview, Green Card, or Asylum Case

If you or a family member is from one of the 39 affected countries, here’s what to know:

Your case should now be moving forward. The freeze that stopped your application from getting a final decision has been ruled illegal and is supposed to be lifted. This applies whether you’re waiting on a green card (Form I-485), a work permit renewal (Form I-765), a citizenship application (Form N-400), or an asylum decision (Form I-589).

This does not guarantee approval. The judge ordered USCIS to go back to making real decisions, not to approve every case. Your application will still be reviewed on its own facts. You could still receive a request for more evidence, get scheduled for an interview, or in some cases be denied, just like before the freeze ever started.

Your travel ban status hasn’t changed. If you’re a national of one of the 39 countries and the travel ban otherwise restricts your entry into the U.S. from abroad, that part is untouched by this ruling. This decision is only about USCIS’s handling of applications, not the travel ban or the separate State Department visa pause affecting people applying at U.S. consulates overseas.

Don’t assume “frozen” means “denied. None of the applications affected by this freeze were rejected. They were simply paused. If your case was stuck, it should still be sitting there, waiting to move forward, not lost or thrown out.

Be cautious about making big decisions right now. Several immigration attorneys have specifically advised people not to withdraw a pending application in hopes of switching strategies, and to talk to a lawyer before any international travel, since the travel ban and re-entry risks are unrelated legal issues that haven’t gone away.

Watch for further changes. Because USCIS has appealed, and because no stay has been granted yet, this situation could shift again. If a court grants a stay, the freeze could temporarily come back while the appeal is decided.

What You Can Do If Your Case Still Isn’t Moving

A few practical steps immigration attorneys are recommending right now:

  • Check your case status through the USCIS online portal regularly for any updates or movement.
  • Keep your records. Save any notice you received referencing a “hold,” “pause,” or “re-review” tied to your case.
  • Reach out to your member of Congress. Congressional offices can sometimes submit formal inquiries to USCIS about a stalled case.
  • Talk to an immigration attorney, especially if your case has been stuck well past normal USCIS processing times, since there are legal tools (like a “mandamus” lawsuit) that can compel the agency to act on cases it’s unreasonably delaying.

What Happens Next

This case, formally called Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS is now in the hands of the First Circuit Court of Appeals. A few things could happen from here:

  • The First Circuit could uphold the ruling, keeping the freeze blocked.
  • The First Circuit could grant a stay, temporarily reinstating the freeze while the appeal continues.
  • The case could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, given how significant and contested this issue is.
  • USCIS could try to rewrite the policy in a way designed to survive legal challenge, this time with more explanation and a formal rulemaking process, rather than internal memos.

This is very much a live, moving situation. We’ll keep following it and update our blog as things develop.

Extra Info: Full List of the 39 Countries Banned From Entering the United States

Countries Under a Full Travel Ban

These countries have all entry into the U.S. blocked, with no exceptions by visa category:

Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burkina Faso, Laos, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, and Syria. This also includes people traveling on documents issued by the Palestinian Authority.

Countries Under a Partial Travel Ban

These countries don’t have everything blocked, but they do face significant restrictions:

Burundi, Cuba, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, the Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

What Does “Partial Ban” Actually Mean?

For countries on the partial list, here’s what’s blocked:

  • All immigrant visas (the kind that lead to a green card)
  • Tourist or business visas (B-1/B-2)
  • Student visas (F and M)
  • Exchange visas (J)

But this is still available, even if with tighter restrictions than usual:

  • Specialized work visas, like the H-1B, the L (intra-company transfers), and similar categories. That said, these visas are issued with much shorter validity periods than normal, and go through stricter security screening.

In other words: someone from Cuba or Venezuela, for example, could in theory still get a work visa, but they wouldn’t be able to enter as a tourist, a student, or a permanent immigrant.

Sources

Leave a Comment