USCIS 39-Country Hold Policy: What It Means for Green Cards, EADs, Asylum, and Citizenship

Index

• What Was the USCIS 39-Country Hold Policy?
• What Did the Federal Court Decide?
• How This Affects Pending Green Card Applications
• How This Affects EAD and Work Permit Delays
• How This Affects Asylum and Withholding Applicants
• How This Affects Citizenship and N-400 Applicants
• Why the Ruling Matters for Mandamus and APA Delay Lawsuits
• Could This Affect Detention or Habeas Corpus Issues?
• Does This Mean USCIS Must Approve Your Case?
• Important Limits: What This Ruling Does Not Do
• What Should You Do If Your Case Is Still Delayed?
• When Federal Court May Become an Option
• Conclusion
• Sources
• Related Gozel Law Resources

Many immigrants did exactly what the immigration system asked them to do: they filed the correct forms, paid the required fees, attended biometrics, responded to notices, and waited for a lawful decision. Then, for some applicants, the case stopped moving because of a broad USCIS country-based hold policy.

The USCIS 39-country hold policy affected pending immigration benefits tied to green cards, work permits, asylum, naturalization, and other USCIS requests. A recent federal court ruling found major parts of that policy unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, but that does not mean every pending case must now be approved.

The practical takeaway is narrower, but still important. USCIS may still review individual eligibility, but it has less room to leave applicants in indefinite uncertainty based on a blanket country-based freeze instead of a case-specific reason.

This article explains what the policy was, which immigration benefits were affected, what the federal court decided, and what applicants should consider if their USCIS case is still delayed.

What Was the USCIS 39-Country Hold Policy?

The policy placed a hold on final USCIS adjudications for certain applicants from countries listed in presidential travel restrictions. In practical terms, USCIS could continue some internal processing steps, but it would not issue a final approval, final denial, or dismissal for many covered applications.

This policy was not limited to people trying to enter the United States from abroad. It also affected people already living in the United States who had filed USCIS benefit requests, including green card, EAD, asylum, and citizenship applications.

That distinction matters. A travel ban generally concerns entry into the United States, while a USCIS benefits hold concerns whether the agency will make a final decision on a pending application filed with USCIS.

Key point: A travel restriction is not the same thing as a USCIS adjudication freeze. Someone may already be inside the United States and still face a country-based delay in a pending USCIS case.

Which applications were affected?

The affected categories included several immigration benefits that applicants depend on for legal stability, employment, family planning, and long-term status in the United States. These were not minor paperwork issues; they involved core immigration benefits.

• Adjustment of status applications, including Form I-485 green card cases;
• Employment authorization applications, including Form I-765 work permits;
• Asylum and withholding-related requests handled by USCIS;
• Naturalization applications, including Form N-400 citizenship cases;
• Previously approved benefits that USCIS sought to re-review under the challenged policy.

For applicants, the legal label matters less than the lived reality. A person may have a pending green card application, a medical residency deadline, a work permit renewal, a citizenship interview, or a family-based case, yet still face silence because the agency placed the case in a broad hold category.

What does “hold” mean in practice?

A hold does not always mean that nothing happens inside the agency. USCIS may still accept filings, issue receipt notices, collect biometrics, or conduct background review, but the problem arises when USCIS refuses to take the final adjudication step: actually deciding the case.

That final decision matters. Without it, an applicant may be unable to work legally, travel, adjust status, naturalize, or plan the next stage of the immigration process with any real certainty.

What Did the Federal Court Decide?

A federal court reviewed several USCIS policies connected to the country-based hold. The court found that USCIS exceeded its lawful authority and failed to properly justify its actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, often called the APA.

The APA requires federal agencies to act within their legal authority, explain major policy decisions, and avoid arbitrary or capricious action. In immigration cases, the APA often becomes important when an agency delays a case, refuses to act, or adopts a policy that conflicts with the immigration statute it administers.

The four USCIS policies reviewed by the court

The court reviewed four related USCIS policies. Together, these policies affected asylum adjudications, immigration benefit requests, previously approved benefits, and country-specific factors used in discretionary decisions.

1. Global Asylum Hold Policy: a hold affecting asylum and withholding adjudications;
2. Benefits Hold Policy: a hold on immigration benefit requests from people connected to the listed countries;
3. Comprehensive Re-Review Policy: a policy to re-review certain previously approved benefits;
4. Country-Specific Factors Policy: guidance instructing officers to treat country-specific factors as significant negative factors in discretionary decisions.

The court declared the challenged policies unlawful and vacated them. Vacatur matters because it sets aside the policy itself, not merely one individual agency decision.

Why the court found the policies unlawful

The court’s reasoning focused on several problems. First, USCIS relied on authority that did not clearly allow it to stop adjudicating broad categories of immigration benefit requests; second, the agency did not adequately explain why such sweeping holds were legally necessary.

The court also emphasized reliance interests. Many applicants had already filed applications, paid fees, attended appointments, and structured their lives around a lawful immigration process; USCIS could not ignore those real-world consequences when adopting a broad hold policy.

The court rejected the idea that simply invoking national security removes the agency from judicial review. National security is a serious government interest, but courts can still ask whether USCIS acted within the law and whether its explanation meets administrative law standards.

How This Affects Pending Green Card Applications

For pending green card applicants, the ruling may be especially important. A Form I-485 application is often the central step that allows a person already in the United States to become a lawful permanent resident through adjustment of status.

Gozel Law regularly assists clients with family-based green card and adjustment of status cases. When a green card case is delayed because of a broad policy rather than a case-specific issue, the applicant may need to understand whether the delay is an ordinary backlog, background review, or something more legally problematic.

Family-based green card cases

Family-based applicants may include spouses of U.S. citizens, parents of U.S. citizens, children, and family preference applicants. Many of these individuals file Form I-130 and Form I-485 as part of a family immigration process that often affects the entire household’s future.

If a family-based applicant’s case is delayed, the first question is not whether the court ruling automatically approves the case. It does not. The better question is whether USCIS has a lawful case-specific reason for the delay or whether the case is being held because of a blanket country-based policy.

Employment-based green card cases

Employment-based applicants may have pending I-140 and I-485 filings, or they may be derivative family members of a principal applicant. These cases often involve years of planning, employer sponsorship, priority dates, medical exams, and status maintenance.

A country-based hold can create serious disruption in these cases. If the I-485 remains pending without a final decision, the applicant may remain dependent on temporary status or employment authorization, and if an EAD renewal is also delayed, the consequences may become immediate and financially serious.

Humanitarian green card pathways

The ruling may also matter for applicants pursuing green cards through humanitarian pathways, including asylum-based adjustment, refugee-based adjustment, VAWA, T visa, or U visa-related eligibility. These cases often involve people who have already experienced serious harm, instability, or long immigration waits.

Humanitarian applicants should not assume that a court ruling solves every delay. USCIS can still review eligibility, admissibility, identity, security checks, and supporting documents, but a blanket refusal to adjudicate may be open to challenge when the applicant has done everything USCIS required.

How This Affects EAD and Work Permit Delays

Employment authorization delays can cause immediate harm. A pending EAD can affect whether someone can accept a job, keep employment, support a family, continue a professional training program, or maintain financial stability while an immigration case is still pending.

In one related federal case, an Iranian physician had been admitted to a family medicine residency program but could not begin without employment authorization. USCIS had not adjudicated her Form I-765 because of the broader hold policy, and the court ordered USCIS to adjudicate the EAD application within seven days.

That type of order is important because it shows the difference between asking a court to approve an application and asking a court to require USCIS to make a decision. A federal court generally does not grant the work permit itself; instead, it may order the agency to stop unlawfully withholding action and issue a lawful decision.

Why EAD delays can cause immediate harm

Work permit delays are not abstract. They can affect a person’s job, housing, health insurance, and ability to support children or dependent family members while the underlying immigration case remains unresolved.

• Loss of a job offer or professional opportunity;
• Suspension from work because an EAD renewal is still pending;
• Inability to support a spouse, children, or dependent family members;
• Loss of health insurance or housing stability;
• Interruption of medical residency, research, training, or licensed employment.

If your EAD is delayed, you should preserve evidence of harm. This may include job offer letters, employer notices, financial records, school or residency deadlines, and USCIS case history screenshots.

Your work permit delay may be more than a backlog. If your EAD, green card, asylum, or citizenship case appears frozen because of a policy-based hold, Gozel Law can review whether federal court action may be appropriate. Contact our team or call (862) 799-2200 for a case evaluation.

Normal backlog vs. policy-based freeze

Not every USCIS delay is unlawful. USCIS often faces backlogs, staffing limits, security review, and high filing volumes, and courts usually recognize that agencies need reasonable time to process large caseloads.

But a policy-based freeze is different. If USCIS is not deciding a case because it has adopted a broad category-based hold, that may raise stronger APA claims and mandamus arguments than an ordinary processing delay.

How This Affects Asylum and Withholding Applicants

The ruling also matters for asylum applicants and people seeking protection-based relief. USCIS asylum delays are not new, but a broad policy that prevents final adjudication is different from a normal asylum backlog because it may reflect a deliberate agency hold.

For many asylum seekers, waiting is not just inconvenient. It can affect work authorization, family reunification, removal risk, and the applicant’s ability to build a stable life while the protection claim remains undecided.

The court reviewed a Global Asylum Hold Policy, which concerned asylum and withholding adjudications. That part of the decision is important because asylum applicants often already face long wait times, and a policy-based freeze can add another layer of legal uncertainty on top of an already difficult system.

Asylum backlog vs. asylum hold

Applicants should understand the difference between a backlog and a hold. A backlog means the agency is taking time because there are many pending cases, while a hold means the agency has adopted a policy barrier that prevents certain cases from reaching a final decision.

That distinction can matter legally. A court may be cautious about interfering with ordinary agency queues, but when the delay is caused by a blanket policy, the legal question changes to whether USCIS had statutory authority and whether it gave a reasoned explanation.

Withholding and protection-based concerns

Withholding of removal and related protection claims can involve different legal standards than asylum. Applicants should not assume that every protection-based case is affected in the same way, because some benefits are discretionary while others may involve mandatory protection if the legal standard is met.

For that reason, anyone with a delayed asylum, withholding, or protection-related case should avoid relying on general headlines alone. The specific application type, procedural stage, and agency explanation are legally important and case-specific.

How This Affects Citizenship and N-400 Applicants

Naturalization applicants may also be affected by country-based review or delayed adjudication. A citizenship case is different from an EAD or green card case because the law gives some N-400 applicants specific remedies after the interview stage and USCIS examination.

For example, if USCIS does not make a naturalization decision within 120 days after the examination, an applicant may have a potential remedy under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Gozel Law explains this issue further in its article on Mandamus vs. 1447(b) lawsuits for N-400 naturalization delays.

When N-400 delays become legally significant

N-400 delays may become more serious when the applicant already attended the interview and USCIS still gives vague responses. In those situations, the question may shift from ordinary processing time to whether USCIS has failed to decide within a legally significant period.

• The applicant already attended the naturalization interview;
• More than 120 days have passed after the examination;
• USCIS gives only vague “pending review” responses;
• The applicant has no clear RFE, NOID, or case-specific explanation;
• The delay appears connected to a broad country-based review rather than individualized review.

Applicants should keep copies of interview notices, USCIS online account updates, written responses, and any communications from the agency. A well-organized record can help determine whether a case involves normal processing or a potentially actionable delay.

What citizenship applicants should not assume

The ruling does not mean every N-400 case must be approved. USCIS can still review good moral character, continuous residence, physical presence, English and civics requirements, tax issues, criminal history, and other naturalization eligibility factors.

But if USCIS refuses to make a final decision because of a broad country-based policy, that may create a different legal problem. The key question is whether the agency is conducting lawful case-specific review or simply withholding final action.

Why the Ruling Matters for Mandamus and APA Delay Lawsuits

The ruling is especially important for immigration delay cases filed under mandamus and the APA. Government agencies often argue that immigration benefits are discretionary and that courts cannot interfere, but that argument is weaker when the agency has refused to decide rather than made a discretionary decision.

That distinction matters. USCIS may have discretion over whether to approve or deny certain benefits, but discretion over the outcome does not always mean discretion to leave the case undecided indefinitely or frozen under a blanket policy.

For a broader explanation of federal delay litigation, see Gozel Law’s guide on how to file a mandamus lawsuit for immigration delays and its Mandamus Lawsuit FAQs.

Discretionary decision vs. failure to decide

In many delay lawsuits, the core argument is not that the judge should approve the immigration benefit. The argument is that USCIS has a duty to make a lawful decision within a reasonable time.

This is why mandamus and APA claims often focus on agency inaction. The applicant is not asking the federal judge to replace USCIS; the applicant is asking the court to require USCIS to do its job and reach a final adjudication based on the individual file.

National security does not automatically end judicial review

The ruling also shows that national security language does not automatically make an agency policy immune from review. Courts can respect the Executive Branch’s role in security matters while still asking whether an agency stayed within statutory limits and gave a reasoned explanation.

For applicants, this does not mean national security concerns are irrelevant. They can still affect individual cases, but USCIS generally must connect its action to lawful authority, reasoned explanation, and case-specific review rather than categorical delay.

Why policy-based delay can be stronger than ordinary backlog

Ordinary backlog cases can be difficult because courts often hesitate to reorder agency priorities. But when the delay is caused by a formal or informal policy that prevents final adjudication, the case may present a different issue involving agency authority and unlawfully withheld action.

Could This Affect Detention or Habeas Corpus Issues?

This ruling is not a habeas corpus decision. It does not directly order the release of anyone from ICE detention, and it should not be described as a detention case, but it may still have indirect relevance in some immigration cases involving removal risk or prolonged uncertainty.

When USCIS refuses to decide applications, the consequences can extend beyond paperwork. A delayed asylum, green card, EAD, or status-related decision may affect a person’s ability to work, maintain lawful status, seek protection, or defend against removal-related consequences.

The indirect connection to habeas corpus

Habeas corpus cases usually focus on unlawful detention, prolonged detention, or the government’s authority to keep someone in custody. A USCIS benefits hold is different because it concerns agency adjudication, not physical detention.

Still, in some cases, agency delay can become part of the broader background. For example, a person may remain in legal uncertainty because USCIS has not decided a protection or status-related application, and that uncertainty may affect removal proceedings, custody arguments, or family hardship.

The key point is caution. This ruling may support a broader argument about unlawful agency inaction, but it does not itself create a direct right to release from ICE detention, and any habeas corpus analysis must be based on the person’s custody status, detention statute, procedural history, and available relief.

Does This Mean USCIS Must Approve Your Case?

No. This is one of the most important points for applicants to understand. A federal court may require USCIS to adjudicate a case, but adjudication does not automatically mean case approval or immigration status granted.

To adjudicate means to decide. That decision may be an approval, denial, request for evidence, notice of intent to deny, interview notice, or another lawful step depending on the case history and eligibility record.

“Adjudicate” does not mean “approve”

Mandamus and APA lawsuits are often misunderstood. Their goal is usually to compel the government to act where action has been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, not to ask the judge to become the immigration officer or guarantee a positive result.

Gozel Law’s mandamus lawyer page for USCIS delays explains how federal court litigation can be used to push a delayed case toward a decision. The core idea is government accountability, not a guaranteed approval.

Individual eligibility still matters

Even after the ruling, USCIS may still deny a case if the applicant is not eligible. Common issues may include inadmissibility problems, missing documents, unresolved background checks, or fraud concerns.

• Criminal history or inadmissibility concerns;
• Prior immigration violations or unlawful presence issues;
• Fraud or misrepresentation allegations;
• Incomplete documentation or missing required evidence;
• Unresolved security or identity checks;
• Failure to respond to a request for evidence.

That is why applicants should not treat the ruling as a substitute for legal review. The better approach is to examine the specific case history, timeline, eligibility, and reason for delay with individualized legal analysis.

Important Limits: What This Ruling Does Not Do

The ruling is significant, but applicants should understand its limits. Immigration law is fact-specific, and a major court decision does not automatically resolve every pending case or eliminate every USCIS review tool.

1. The ruling does not guarantee approval

The court’s concern was USCIS’s refusal to adjudicate under broad policies. That is different from ordering USCIS to approve every application, and applicants still need to qualify for the immigration benefit they requested.

2. USCIS can still conduct lawful case-specific review

USCIS may still conduct background checks, fraud review, identity verification, admissibility analysis, and eligibility review. The issue is whether USCIS can use a blanket policy to avoid final adjudication without lawful authority or proper explanation.

3. Appeals, stays, or new guidance may affect implementation

The government may appeal, request a stay, or issue new guidance. Applicants should avoid assuming that the ruling will immediately update every pending USCIS file, because practical effect may depend on agency implementation, litigation timing, and future court orders.

4. Travel ban entry restrictions and USCIS benefits holds are different

A travel ban may affect whether certain people can enter the United States. A USCIS benefits hold affects whether the agency will decide applications filed by people who may already be inside the country, so these are related policy areas but different legal issues.

What Should You Do If Your Case Is Still Delayed?

If your USCIS case is still pending, start by organizing the record. A strong legal analysis depends on facts, dates, notices, and evidence of harm, not just general frustration with a long-pending case.

1. Review your receipt notices. Confirm the form type, filing date, receipt number, and service center or field office.
2. Check current USCIS processing times. Use the official USCIS processing times tool to compare your case with posted estimates.
3. Save your case status history. Keep screenshots from the official USCIS case status tool.
4. Document any harm. Save employer letters, financial records, school deadlines, or medical residency notices.
5. Identify agency responses. Keep service request replies, congressional inquiry responses, Ombudsman communications, and USCIS notices.
6. Speak with an immigration attorney. A lawyer can help determine whether the delay appears ordinary, case-specific, or tied to a broader unlawful hold.

Applicants should avoid sending repeated unsupported inquiries without a strategy. In some cases, service requests help, but in others the record may show that USCIS is not moving the case for reasons that require a stronger legal response and federal litigation review.

When Federal Court May Become an Option

Federal court is not the first step in every delayed immigration case. But when a case has been pending for a long time and USCIS has no lawful reason for refusing to act, a mandamus lawsuit or APA claim may become appropriate.

A mandamus lawsuit asks a federal court to compel a government agency to perform a clear legal duty. An APA claim may challenge agency action that has been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, and in immigration delay cases these claims are often filed together.

Stronger fact patterns for federal court

A case may be stronger for federal court review when several facts are present. The strongest cases often involve a long delay, completed steps, vague agency responses, and concrete harm from continued inaction.

• The case has been pending well beyond normal processing expectations;
• Biometrics, interview, or required steps have already been completed;
• There is no pending RFE or missing applicant response;
• USCIS has provided vague or repetitive delay explanations;
• The applicant faces concrete harm from the continued delay;
• The delay appears tied to a policy-based hold rather than individualized review.

Gozel Law also discusses common questions about federal litigation in its Mandamus Lawsuit FAQs. That resource can help applicants understand process, timing, risks, and realistic expectations.

Conclusion

The USCIS 39-country hold policy created serious uncertainty for many people who had already followed the legal immigration process. The federal court ruling is important because it confirms that USCIS cannot avoid judicial review simply by labeling a broad benefits freeze as a national security measure.

For applicants, the practical takeaway is clear. The ruling may help if your green card, EAD, asylum, or citizenship case was delayed because of a blanket country-based hold, but it does not replace individualized legal analysis.

Your next step should be to review your timeline, gather your records, and determine whether USCIS has a lawful case-specific reason for the delay. If the delay appears tied to a policy-based hold, federal court review may be worth discussing with an immigration attorney.

Sources

• Yazdan Pouri v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum Opinion, D.D.C., May 30, 2026
• Federal court opinion uploaded for review: Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island et al. v. USCIS et al., D.R.I., June 5, 2026.
• USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194, Hold and Review of USCIS Benefit Applications Filed by Aliens from Additional High-Risk Countries, Jan. 1, 2026
• USCIS Case Processing Times
• USCIS Case Status Online
• 5 U.S.C. § 706, Administrative Procedure Act judicial review provision
• 8 U.S.C. § 1447, Naturalization hearing and 120-day rule
• 8 U.S.C. § 1255, Adjustment of status
• New York Times archive article on the Rhode Island ruling, June 5, 2026

Related Gozel Law Resources

• Family-Based Green Card & Marriage Visas
• USCIS Adjustment of Status Policy 2026: How Pending I-485 Cases May Be Affected
• U.S. Citizenship & Naturalization Attorneys
• Asylum, VAWA & Humanitarian Immigration Relief
• Mandamus Lawsuit to End USCIS & Visa Delays
• Mandamus Lawyer for USCIS Delays
• How to File a Mandamus Lawsuit for Immigration Delays
• Mandamus Lawsuit FAQs