Federal Court Blocks USCIS’s Hold On Immigration Benefits For Some Applicants From 39-Country List — What You Need To Know

On April 30, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a significant ruling that may affect anyone with a pending immigration benefit application in the United States. In Akmurat O. Doe et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., Judge Julia E. Kobick found that two sweeping USCIS policies — one placing an indefinite hold on benefit applications from nationals of 39 countries and all asylum seekers (set forth in PM 602-0192 and PM 602-0194), and another treating an applicant’s nationality as a “significant negative factor” in discretionary decisions (announced in PA 2025-26) — are likely unlawful. The court ordered USCIS to immediately lift the adjudicative hold for 22 individual applicants who demonstrated concrete harm, and to stop applying the nationality-based negative factor to their adjustment of status and work authorization applications.

The court’s reasoning is just as important as the immediate result. The court concluded that the adjudicative hold violates federal statutes and USCIS’s own regulations, which require the agency to decide applications for naturalization, asylum, adjustment of status, and work authorization within the frameworks Congress established. It also found that USCIS failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the policy and failed to consider the reliance interests of thousands of applicants whose lives have been placed on indefinite hold. And it held that treating nationality as a negative factor in adjustment of status and work authorization cases violates the Immigration and Nationality Act’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in visa issuance.

How Applicants Demonstrated Harm to the Court

The 22 applicants who received relief did so by submitting sworn declarations — written statements under penalty of perjury — detailing the specific, concrete harms they face while their applications remain frozen. Their experiences illustrate the real-world stakes of these policies:

• Inability to work and financial hardship. Eleven applicants attested that the adjudicative hold has left them unable to work, leading to serious financial consequences, loss of health insurance, and housing insecurity. These are not individuals who lost a single job — they face the prospect of being unable to obtain any employment at all while their applications sit unadjudicated.
• Lost professional opportunities. Seven applicants described losing critical job offers and career opportunities that cannot be recovered even if their applications are eventually approved.
• Family separation. Seven applicants reported that the hold has forced them to miss family weddings or cancel trips to see elderly or ill family members abroad, because traveling could jeopardize their pending applications.
• Fear of detention and removal. Two applicants described a legitimate fear of unlawful detention by ICE, which has recently arrested individuals lawfully present in the country. Three others expressed fear of being forced to return to countries where they would be unsafe.
• Severe mental health consequences. One applicant seeking naturalization described experiencing suicidal ideation caused by the prolonged uncertainty surrounding their case.

The court found that these harms are “not accurately measurable or adequately compensable by money damages” and therefore constitute the kind of irreparable injury that justifies court intervention. This evidentiary showing was the critical factor that separated these 22 applicants from the remaining approximately 178 plaintiffs in the case who did not file declarations — and who therefore have not yet received relief.

What This Means for Other Applicants

The injunction currently applies only to the 22 applicants who filed declarations with the court. For everyone else, USCIS is not yet required to lift the hold on pending applications or stop applying the significant negative factor policy. However, the court’s detailed legal analysis sends a strong signal: these policies are on shaky legal ground. Other courts around the country have reached similar conclusions, and the court itself ordered the parties to confer about extending the injunction to additional plaintiffs by May 7, 2026. That suggests the legal landscape may continue to shift in favor of affected applicants in the coming weeks and months.

Practical Guidance for Affected Applicants

Consult with an immigration attorney. If you are from one of the 39 affected countries and have a pending application for asylum, naturalization, adjustment of status, or work authorization, consider speaking with an immigration attorney. An attorney can help you understand how this ruling relates to your case, whether there are avenues to seek similar relief — such as preparing a declaration documenting the specific harms you are experiencing — and how to preserve your current status and work authorization in the interim.

Document your situation. As the declarations in this case illustrate, courts require concrete, specific evidence of harm — not general statements of inconvenience. If the adjudicative hold is causing you to lose employment, miss medical care, experience family separation, or suffer other serious consequences, keeping a record of those harms and any supporting documentation (termination letters, medical records, financial statements) may be important if relief becomes available to a broader group of applicants.

Monitor developments. This case is moving quickly. The court ordered the parties to report back by May 7, 2026, on whether additional plaintiffs should receive relief, and related litigation is proceeding in other federal courts. Immigration advocacy organizations and legal aid providers are tracking these cases and may offer updates or resources.

Understand the legal foundation. The court’s detailed analysis — particularly its conclusion that the adjudicative hold violates 8 U.S.C. § 1446, 8 U.S.C. § 1158, and USCIS’s own regulations, and that the significant negative factor policy runs afoul of 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A)‘s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination — provides a strong legal foundation that attorneys can draw on when representing affected applicants.

For background on the underlying executive actions, you can review Presidential Proclamation 10949 and Presidential Proclamation 10998, as well as the USCIS update on strengthened screening and vetting. The legal landscape around these policies is evolving rapidly. If the adjudicative hold or significant negative factor policy is affecting your pending application, staying informed and seeking qualified legal guidance are the most important steps you can take right now.