Explainer · Litigation

What the Dorcas ruling means for Afghan allies.

A federal court struck down four USCIS policies that had frozen green cards, work permits, asylum decisions, and naturalization for Afghans and nationals of 38 other countries. The government is appealing. Here is what changed, what did not, and what to do now.

Last updated October 4, 2026

Latest

The case is on appeal at the First Circuit (No. 26-1703). The government tendered its opening brief on September 10, 2026, then re-tendered it twice after the court flagged a procedural problem, and an anti-immigration group filed an amicus brief for the government on October 1. In August the appeals court paused one of the four policies, the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, while the appeal proceeds; the other three remain vacated and cannot be enforced. The case is Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS (D.R.I. No. 1:26-cv-00132). Read AfghanEvac's statement on the stay denial.

Latest update · October 4, 2026

Where the case stands now.

The district court's win is on appeal. Since it was entered, the First Circuit paused one piece of the ruling, the government filed and then refiled the brief asking for the whole thing to be reversed, and the briefing schedule slipped.

  • A partial stay is in effect. After the district court denied the government a pause on July 15, the government asked the First Circuit for one. On August 14, 2026, a three-judge panel granted that request only in part. It paused the vacatur of the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, letting USCIS resume that policy during the appeal, and denied a stay as to the other three policies, which remain vacated.
  • The government's opening brief, three times over. On September 10, 2026, the government tendered its opening brief and appendix. It argues the policies are not reviewable because they are not final agency action and not ripe, that the Immigration and Nationality Act bars review of discretionary benefits decisions, and that the district court was wrong on the merits. The government re-tendered the brief on September 17 and again on September 24, and on September 23 the clerk ordered a conforming brief and appendix by September 30.
  • The mootness argument hit a procedural wall. The government says the challenge to the Global Asylum Hold Policy is moot, pointing to a March 25, 2026 memorandum by the USCIS Director lifting that hold, and asked to add that memo to the record. On September 15, the First Circuit refused. The memo was never before the district court, so it cannot be added to the record on appeal; the most the government can do is ask the merits panel to take judicial notice of it, and the court told the government to say plainly in its brief which arguments depend on that request. Whether the panel considers the memo at all is now a live question.
  • An amicus for the government. On October 1, 2026, the Federation for American Immigration Reform tendered an amicus curiae brief supporting the government's appeal.
  • What comes next. The plaintiffs' response brief is due 30 days after the court accepts an opening brief. That acceptance had not been docketed as of October 4, so the response now lands in late October at the earliest and more likely November, with the government's reply 21 days after that. Oral argument and a decision would follow.

Case timeline

June 5, 2026 · District court
Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (D.R.I.) grants the plaintiffs summary judgment in part and vacates all four USCIS policies as unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.
June 11, 2026 · District court
The court enters partial final judgment for the plaintiffs, clearing the way for appeal.
June 2026 · Appeal filed
The government appeals to the First Circuit, docketed as No. 26-1703.
July 15, 2026 · District court
Chief Judge McConnell denies the government's motion to pause the ruling while it appeals.
August 14, 2026 · First Circuit
A panel grants the government a stay only in part, limited to the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy. That one policy may be enforced during the appeal; the other three stay vacated.
September 10, 2026 · First Circuit
The government tenders its opening brief and appendix, and moves to supplement the record to argue the Global Asylum Hold challenge is moot.
September 15, 2026 · First Circuit
The court denies the motion to supplement. The March 25 memo is outside the record on appeal; the government may only ask the merits panel to take judicial notice, and must say in its brief which arguments depend on that.
September 17 and 24, 2026 · First Circuit
The government re-tenders its opening brief twice. On September 23 the clerk orders a conforming brief and appendix by September 30.
October 1, 2026 · First Circuit
The Federation for American Immigration Reform tenders an amicus brief supporting the government.

Litigation status drawn from the public CourtListener dockets for 1st Cir. No. 26-1703 and D.R.I. No. 1:26-cv-00132-JJM-PAS, reviewed October 4, 2026.

What the court struck down

Four USCIS policies, vacated.

Each of these policies used an applicant's nationality to stall or reopen their case. The court vacated all four. The badges show where each one stands while the appeal is pending.

Benefits Hold

USCIS froze adjudications on green cards, work permits, and naturalization applications based on the applicant's nationality.

Vacated · in effect

Global Asylum Hold

USCIS paused asylum decisions for people from designated countries, including Afghanistan.

Vacated · lifted by USCIS

Comprehensive Re-Review

USCIS reopened previously approved cases for nationals of covered countries who arrived after January 20, 2021.

Paused during appeal

Country-Specific Factors

USCIS instructed officers to treat an applicant's nationality as a significant negative factor in discretionary decisions.

Vacated · in effect

Why the court ruled against USCIS

The agency exceeded its authority.

The court found that USCIS violated the Administrative Procedure Act. It implemented these policies without sufficient legal justification and without weighing the reliance interests of people who had already been approved or who had built their lives here in good faith.

Set expectations

What this ruling does not do.

This is a real and important win, but it is narrow. The decision does not:

  • End the Afghanistan travel ban
  • Restart refugee admissions
  • Restore Enduring Welcome operations
  • Fix Special Immigrant Visa processing overseas

Those fights continue elsewhere, including in the other cases on our litigation tracker.

If you are an Afghan national in the U.S.

What to do now.

1

Most holds are lifted

With the Benefits Hold and the asylum hold vacated, USCIS has resumed adjudicating cases that were frozen. One policy, the re-review of already-approved cases, is back in effect during the appeal, so an approved case could be reopened.

2

Check your contact info

Verify that your current address and contact information are up to date with USCIS so you do not miss a notice.

3

Talk to a lawyer

Consult an immigration attorney about any pending application, especially cases that were reopened or paused. If your case is past posted processing times, ask about a case inquiry, the CIS Ombudsman, or mandamus.

For vetted legal help and other resources, see our Resources page, and find your case type in the case guide. This explainer is information, not legal advice.

Go deeper

Read the record and track the case.

Read AfghanEvac's statements, follow the public dockets on CourtListener, and see where Dorcas fits among the lawsuits shaping Afghan relocation.

Our June 5 statement → Our July 15 statement →
Appeal docket (1st Cir.) District court docket See the litigation tracker

This explainer summarizes public court filings for informational purposes and is not legal advice. Case details are drawn from the dockets on CourtListener, a service of the Free Law Project. For guidance on your own case, consult a qualified immigration attorney.