Explainer: What the Dorcas vs USCIS Decision Means for Afghan Allies

Read the Decision
Our Statement

Decision: Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island et al. v. USCIS et al.
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Judge: Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr.
Date: June 5, 2026
Status: District court ruling. Appeal expected.

Executive Summary

A federal judge has struck down four USCIS policies that were used to delay, pause, or subject to additional scrutiny immigration benefit applications filed by nationals of Afghanistan and 38 other countries.

The court held that USCIS exceeded its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it:

  • Paused adjudications of many immigration benefits for nationals of designated countries.

  • Suspended certain asylum adjudications.

  • Re-reviewed previously approved cases.

  • Directed officers to treat nationality from designated countries as a significant negative factor in discretionary decisions.

The court vacated all four policies. The ruling does not invalidate the travel ban itself, restart refugee admissions, or directly affect overseas visa processing.

Background

Following Executive Order 14161 and Presidential Proclamations 10949 and 10998, the administration identified 39 countries as presenting elevated screening and vetting concerns. Afghanistan was included among the countries subject to entry restrictions.

USCIS subsequently implemented several internal policies affecting individuals from those countries.

According to the court, these policies resulted in many applicants being unable to receive final decisions on immigration benefits despite having completed required application steps, interviews, biometrics collection, and background checks.

The Four Policies the Court Struck Down

1. Benefits Hold Policy

What USCIS Did

USCIS directed officers to place holds on many immigration benefit applications filed by nationals of travel-ban countries.

Cases could continue through portions of the process but could not receive final adjudication.

Potentially Affected Benefits

Examples discussed by the court include:

  • Adjustment of Status

  • Employment Authorization

  • Naturalization

  • Other USCIS-administered immigration benefits

Court's Holding

The court found USCIS lacked authority to impose a categorical adjudication freeze based on nationality and vacated the policy.

2. Global Asylum Hold Policy

What USCIS Did

USCIS directed personnel to place a hold on asylum and withholding-of-removal adjudications while conducting broader reviews.

Court's Holding

The court found the policy inconsistent with governing immigration law and administrative requirements and vacated it.

3. Comprehensive Re-Review Policy

What USCIS Did

USCIS directed officers to re-review previously approved benefit requests involving nationals of covered countries who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021.

Why It Mattered

The policy created uncertainty for individuals who had already received approvals and believed their cases had been resolved.

Court's Holding

The court found USCIS lacked authority for the policy and vacated it.

4. Country-Specific Factors Policy

What USCIS Did

USCIS revised its Policy Manual to instruct adjudicators to consider country-specific concerns associated with travel-ban countries as significant negative discretionary factors.

Court's Holding

The court found this policy unlawful and vacated it.

Why the Court Ruled Against USCIS

The decision rests primarily on Administrative Procedure Act grounds.

The court found that USCIS:

Exceeded Its Authority

The court concluded USCIS relied on legal authority that Congress had not granted and attempted to exercise powers beyond those authorized by immigration statutes and regulations.

Failed to Provide Adequate Justification

The court found USCIS did not sufficiently explain why the challenged policies were necessary or lawful.

Failed to Consider Reliance Interests

Applicants had invested time, money, and effort in existing immigration processes. The court found USCIS failed to adequately consider those interests before implementing the policies.

Acted Arbitrarily and Capriciously

The court concluded the agency's decision-making failed to satisfy APA requirements.

What This Means for Afghan Allies

Individuals Inside the United States

The decision directly concerns USCIS adjudications affecting Afghans already in the United States.

The ruling may affect:

  • Pending green card applications

  • Pending naturalization applications

  • Pending work authorization applications

  • Pending asylum-related adjudications

  • Other USCIS benefit requests subject to the challenged policies

The legal basis for the USCIS holds has been vacated by the court.

Individuals Outside the United States

The decision has much more limited impact.

The court did not order:

  • Visa issuance

  • Refugee admissions

  • Overseas case processing

  • Admission to the United States

Those issues largely involve separate authorities and agencies.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this end the Afghanistan travel ban?

No.

The court specifically distinguished between the President's authority to restrict entry and USCIS's authority to adjudicate benefits.

The travel-ban proclamations themselves remain in place unless separately overturned.

Does this restart refugee admissions?

No.

The case concerns USCIS adjudications and does not reopen the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Does this restore Enduring Welcome?

No.

The decision does not directly address Enduring Welcome operations or refugee relocation activities.

Does this fix Follow-to-Join Asylee (FTJ-A) processing?

Not directly.

FTJ-A processing involves separate legal authorities and operational processes that are not the focus of this case.

Does this affect Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants overseas?

Not directly.

The decision concerns USCIS adjudication policies and does not order changes to consular visa processing overseas.

What Happens Next?

The government is likely to:

  1. Seek a stay of the ruling.

  2. Appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

  3. Continue defending the challenged policies in higher courts.

Until further court action occurs, the district court has vacated the four challenged USCIS policies.

Key Takeaways

  • The court struck down four USCIS policies affecting nationals of Afghanistan and 38 other countries.

  • The court held that USCIS exceeded its authority and violated the APA.

  • The ruling may affect pending USCIS benefit applications, including green cards, naturalization, employment authorization, and asylum-related adjudications.

  • The ruling does not eliminate the travel ban.

  • The ruling does not restart refugee admissions or Enduring Welcome.

  • Appeals and additional litigation are likely.

Bottom line: The court invalidated USCIS policies that had been used to freeze or alter adjudications for many Afghan nationals and others. The ruling is significant for individuals with pending USCIS cases inside the United States, but it does not itself reopen broader pathways for Afghans seeking entry from abroad.