U.S. Judge Strikes Down Four USCIS Policies That Delayed Afghan and Other Immigration Cases

A U.S. federal judge has struck down four immigration policy directives issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), ruling that the agency overstepped its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The policies had effectively delayed or subjected to heightened scrutiny immigration benefit applications filed by nationals of Afghanistan and 38 other designated countries.

The decision, handed down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, also denied the government’s motion to stay the ruling pending appeal, clearing the way for immediate implementation. According to AfghanEvac, a nonprofit coalition supporting Afghan evacuations and resettlement, USCIS has already resumed processing immigration applications that were previously frozen under the now-vacated guidance as of July 15.

The Vacated Policies

The court struck down four specific USCIS policy memoranda:

1. Benefits Hold Policy – which halted final adjudications on a broad range of immigration benefit requests.

2. Global Asylum Hold Policy – which suspended decisions on applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

3. Comprehensive Re-Review Policy – which required previously approved applications to undergo additional, retroactive review.

4. Country-Specific Factors Policy – which instructed immigration officers to treat an applicant’s nationality from designated countries as a significant negative factor in discretionary determinations, including those involving adjustment of status, work authorization, and naturalization.

Legal Rationale

In his ruling, the judge found that USCIS acted beyond the authority delegated by Congress and failed to articulate a legally sufficient justification for the sweeping pauses and procedural overhauls. The court also determined that the agency did not adequately consider the reliance interests of applicants who had already completed in-person interviews, submitted biometric data, and passed background security checks only to have their cases indefinitely delayed.

Citing the APA’s prohibition on arbitrary and capricious agency action, the court concluded that the policies were not the product of reasoned decision-making and lacked a clear statutory foundation. The judge declined to issue a permanent injunction or rule on broader constitutional challenges, confining the decision strictly to administrative law grounds.

Immediate Impact and Scope

The ruling has immediate, nationwide effect. According to AfghanEvac, USCIS has communicated internally that the challenged policy guidance is no longer operative, and adjudications on previously paused cases have resumed. The decision is expected to provide the most significant relief to Afghan nationals and other affected applicants already residing in the U.S. with pending applications for:

• Adjustment of status (lawful permanent residence),

• Asylum and related protections,

• Employment authorization documents (EADs), and

• Naturalization (citizenship).

What the Ruling Does Not Change

Despite the court’s decision, several critical limitations remain:

• The ruling does not invalidate or affect the presidential travel restrictions impacting Afghanistan and other listed countries.

• It does not restart the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).

• It does not resume Operation Enduring Welcome, the U.S. government’s initiative to support Afghan evacuees.

• It does not reopen overseas visa processing at U.S. embassies or consulates.

• It does not apply to Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applications, which are processed abroad by the Department of State.

Next Steps and Appellate Outlook

The Justice Department has appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. While the challenged USCIS policies remain invalid for now, the government may seek emergency relief such as a stay pending appeal from the appellate court as litigation continues. Legal observers note that the First Circuit’s review will likely focus on whether the district court properly applied the APA’s standards and whether USCIS’s policies were indeed ultra vires (beyond its delegated authority).

For the thousands of applicants whose cases were stalled by these policies, the decision marks a significant procedural victory but the final resolution of their immigration statuses remains contingent on further agency action and the outcome of the ongoing appeal.