USCIS Ordered To Resume Processing For Certain “Restricted” Countries Applicants

On April 30, 2026, a federal court in Massachusetts issued a significant ruling ordering the U.S. government to lift its blanket hold on certain USCIS immigration applications for approximately 200 plaintiffs from specific countries. The court found that two key USCIS policies, which have been responsible for freezing cases for months, are likely unlawful. While this marks an important legal victory, the decision currently applies only to the individuals involved in the case. Thousands of other applicants remain subject to these policies and may need to take additional steps to obtain relief.

Background on the USCIS Policies at Issue

Beginning in November 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) implemented two policies affecting individuals from certain countries identified by the Trump administration as presenting national security or vetting concerns.

1. “Significant Negative Factor” (SNF) Policy
   This policy allowed USCIS to treat a person’s country of origin as a negative factor when deciding immigration applications, including adjustment of status (green card applications) and work permits (EADs). In practical terms, this meant that nationality alone could count against an applicant, even if all other eligibility requirements were met.
2. “Adjudicative Hold” Policy
   This policy paused (or “froze”) applications indefinitely for affected individuals, including work authorization, adjustment of status, and asylum applications. Many applicants received no updates and no timeline, leaving them unable to work or maintain status.

The affected countries by these USCIS policies are: Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burma (Myanmar), Burundi, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville (Republic of the Congo), Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, The Gambia, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Palestinian Authority (those using P.A.-issued documents), Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

What the Court Decided: USCIS to Resume Processing

On April 30, 2026, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled that these USCIS policies are likely unlawful and ordered the government to stop applying them, at least for certain individuals in the case. The court found that:

• USCIS likely does not have the authority to freeze applications indefinitely based on nationality
• Using nationality as a negative factor is likely inconsistent with immigration law
• The government did not follow proper rulemaking procedures before implementing these policies
• Applicants suffered real and immediate harm, including:
  • Loss of work authorization
  • Disruption of lawful status
  • Financial and personal hardship

The decision signals the type of relief other litigants may be able to pursue through similar lawsuits. The court held that:

• USCIS must resume processing applications for certain plaintiffs
• USCIS must stop applying these policies to those individuals
• The court will determine whether additional plaintiffs are also entitled to relief

Only the individuals in the lawsuit are currently protected by this ruling. This means that, for most people, USCIS delays and holds may still be in place. However, the court’s reasoning strongly suggests that these policies are legally flawed across the board, not just for the individuals in the case.

Who May Still Be Affected by these USCIS Policies?

This decision is especially important for individuals whose immigration status or work authorization is at risk due to delayed USCIS processing.

You may be affected if you are:

• An F-1 student (including OPT or STEM OPT applicants) with a pending or expiring work permit
• An employment-based nonimmigrant visa holder (such as H-1B, L-1, or others) with a pending extension or change of status petition
• An employment-based immigrant petition applicant, including:
  • Form I-140 petitions based on PERM labor certification
  • Self-petitioned or employer-sponsored National Interest Waiver (NIW) cases
  • EB-1A Extraordinary Ability petitions
  • EB-1B Outstanding Professor or Researcher petitions
• An adjustment of status (green card) applicant waiting on USCIS action
• An asylum applicant with a pending case

Legal Options for Applicants Still Facing Delays

Individuals who are not covered by the current ruling may still have legal pathways to move their cases forward, as these delays are not just administrative. Many individuals are losing their jobs due to expired work permits, falling out of lawful status, becoming unable to travel, and facing significant financial hardship as a result of these prolonged processing issues.

Courts are actively reviewing these policies, and this recent decision provides a strong legal foundation for similar cases. This ruling is an important development, but it is not the final word. The government may appeal, as the decision currently applies only to specific individuals, and USCIS policies remain in place for others unless further court action is taken. We expect continued litigation and additional developments in the coming weeks and months.

Recommended Actions

Given the ongoing uncertainty and limited scope of the court’s ruling, individuals and employers should take proactive steps to assess risk and preserve available options:

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.