gobordaGlobal mobility intelligence
Work & skilled workersEffectiveHigh impactPending review

U.S. Court Orders USCIS to Resume Adjudication of Asylum and Immigration Benefit Applications Previously Subject to Hold

🇺🇸 United StatesCourt Decisions1 recorded versionLast change 28 Aug 2026
ConfidenceVery high · 100%

Current rules

On 24 August 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Red Eagle Law, L.C. v. Edlow, Case No. 26-cv-04850-CRB, granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granted a preliminary injunction against the challenged PM-602-0194 policy. The plaintiffs consisted of people from the affected countries with pending USCIS immigration-benefit applications. The practical effect is that USCIS must resume adjudicating covered immigration-benefit applications instead of continuing to hold them under PM-602-0194. USCIS's own 28 August announcement confirms that the agency will comply with the court order. The relevant country-based group consists of Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, The Gambia, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe, as well as the separate Palestinian Authority travel-document category. The underlying benefit hold was broad. It covered pending USCIS benefit applications for people covered by PM-602-0194, subject to the memorandum's exceptions. The types of applications potentially affected included benefits such as Form I-485 adjustment of status, Form I-765 employment authorisation, Form I-539 extension/change of status and Form N-400 naturalisation, among other USCIS benefit requests. The exact effect depended on the applicant's circumstances and the particular benefit. The separate asylum policy covered all pending Form I-589 applications regardless of nationality. Therefore, the court-ordered change concerning the asylum hold is broader than the 39-country component. The court order does not mean that USCIS must approve the applications. Applicants must still satisfy the ordinary eligibility, admissibility and other requirements for the benefit they are seeking. The change is that USCIS must adjudicate covered cases rather than keeping them frozen solely under the challenged hold policy.

Overview

This proposed rule would implement a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, authorising Immigration Judges to impose civil money penalties for contempt of their authority. The rule defines the scope of contempt authority, outlines procedures for findings and penalties, establishes an appellate process, and makes conforming changes to practitioner discipline.

Who is affected by the latest change

  • Applicants whose pending United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) benefit applications were paused under PM-602-0192 or PM-602-0194
  • People from the countries covered by the country-based hold
  • People with pending applications that were affected, such as Form I-485, Form I-765, Form I-539, Form N-400, and other USCIS benefits, depending on their situation
  • People whose pending Form I-589 asylum applications were affected by the separate asylum hold, no matter their nationality
  • People who are part of the class certified by the federal court in Red Eagle Law v. Edlow

What changed in the latest version

Before

On 2 December 2025, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued PM-602-0192. This memo was called 'Hold and Review of All Pending Asylum Applications and All USCIS Benefit Applications Filed by Aliens from High-Risk Countries'. This memo told USCIS officers to pause all pending asylum applications. USCIS wanted to review its screening and checking processes. It also paused benefit applications from people from 19 countries. These countries were named in Presidential Proclamation 10949. On 1 January 2026, USCIS issued PM-602-0194. This memo expanded the country-based hold to more countries. These additional countries were named in Presidential Proclamation 10998. The memo also told USCIS to review its screening and checking processes. It also told USCIS to re-review certain benefits that it had already approved for people from those countries. These policies were not normal processing delays. They were intentional processing holds. They were linked to the government's stricter screening and checking policy.

After

On 24 August 2026, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California made a ruling. The case was Red Eagle Law, L.C. v. Edlow, Case No. 26-cv-04850-CRB. The court approved the plaintiffs' request to certify a class of people. It also issued a preliminary order against the PM-602-0194 policy. The plaintiffs were people from affected countries who had pending applications for immigration benefits with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This means that USCIS must now start processing these immigration benefit applications again. It cannot keep them on hold under PM-602-0194. USCIS announced on 28 August that it will obey the court order. The affected countries and territories are: Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, The Gambia, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The Palestinian Authority travel document category is also included. The benefit hold was wide-ranging. It covered pending USCIS benefit applications for people affected by PM-602-0194, except for specific exemptions in the memo. The types of applications that might have been affected include: Form I-485 (adjustment of status), Form I-765 (employment authorisation), Form I-539 (extension/change of status), and Form N-400 (naturalisation). Other USCIS benefit requests were also included. The exact effect depended on the applicant's situation and the specific benefit. The separate asylum policy covered all pending Form I-589 applications. This was true regardless of the applicant's nationality. Therefore, the court order about the asylum hold applies more widely than just the 39 countries. The court order does not mean that USCIS must approve the applications. Applicants must still meet the usual requirements for eligibility, admissibility, and other conditions for the benefit they want. The change is that USCIS must process these cases. It cannot keep them frozen only because of the challenged hold policy.

This is important because the previous United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies could stop a decision on an immigration benefit. This applied to applicants already in the United States. It happened simply because they were subject to the country-based hold. The affected benefits could include applications such as: adjustment of status, employment authorisation, extension or change of non-immigrant status, and naturalisation. This depended on the specific application and the hold that applied. The January memo was written broadly. It covered all pending USCIS benefit applications. It did not just name a single immigration form. The asylum hold was even broader. PM-602-0192 told USCIS to put all pending Form I-589 (asylum and withholding-of-removal) applications on hold. This was regardless of the applicant's nationality. So, an asylum applicant did not need to be from one of the 39 countries to be affected by this part of the policy. The court's decision has two especially important results: immigration benefit applications that were affected can no longer stay frozen under these policies, and the asylum hold cannot continue in the way that the lawsuit challenged.

Explained simply

Imagine you've sent off an important application, like a form to stay in a country. For some people from certain countries, the government had put these applications 'on hold', meaning they wouldn't even look at them properly. Now, a court has said, 'No, you can't do that anymore!' So, the government has to start processing those 'on hold' applications just like everyone else's. This means people who were stuck waiting can now expect their applications to move forward.

Frequently asked

Version history

  1. v5Effective 28 Aug 2026EffectiveHigh impact
    U.S. Court Orders USCIS to Resume Adjudication of Asylum and Immigration Benefit Applications Previously Subject to Hold Policies

    On 24 August 2026, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order. This order was for the case Red Eagle Law, L.C., et al., v. Joseph B. Edlow. It stopped two policy memos from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194. This court decision removes the processing holds that USCIS had placed on certain immigration applications. USCIS must now process applications from citizens or natives of 39 specific countries, or the Palestinian Authority, in the normal way. These people have pending asylum applications (Form I-589) or other benefit applications. The court also certified a class of affected people. This means the change applies to all individuals in this group.

Timeline

  1. Announced

    28 Aug 2026

    On 24 August 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order enjoining two U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy memoranda, PM 602-0192 and PM 602-0194. This order mandates that USCIS adjudicate applications previously subject to these hold policies in the normal course of its process, impacting individuals from 39 designated countries and t

  2. Takes effect

    24 Aug 2026

    USCIS is ordered to adjudicate applications in the normal course of its process, effectively enjoining Policy Memoranda PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194. This means the adjudication holds previously imposed by these policy memoranda are removed.

Other routes in this country

1 / 6