Federal judge orders USCIS to resume processing benefits it froze based on applicants' nationality

A federal judge in Ohio has ordered U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to restart work on green card, work permit, and travel document applications it had put on indefinite hold because of the applicants' nationality.

U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley granted a preliminary injunction on July 6 in John Doe 1 v. Edlow, Case No. 2:26-cv-494, filed in the Southern District of Ohio. The order covers 25 plaintiffs who are citizens of Burma, Canada, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Tanzania, and Venezuela. All of them live in the United States, and many already held work authorization before their applications stalled. The group includes a hospital pharmacist, a registered nurse doing federally funded cancer research, a university professor, and recent graduates with pending job offers, according to the opinion.

What the order requires

Marbley directed USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security to resume processing the plaintiffs' pending Form I-485 permanent residence applications and Form I-131 travel document requests in the ordinary course. He gave the agency 30 days to decide their Form I-765 work authorization applications. For work permits tied to optional practical training, the order says USCIS must adjust the validity periods to restore time lost during the hold.

The order applies only to the 25 people who sued. Marbley did not issue a nationwide injunction, and he required each plaintiff to post a nominal bond of $1. He also told the government to file a sworn report within 30 days describing how it complied, and to notify the court within three days if it issues any new policy that would delay or single out the plaintiffs' applications. One plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe 9, must receive an employment authorization document within seven days.

The policies at issue

The case challenges three USCIS actions: Policy Alert PA-2025-26 and Policy Memoranda PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194. According to the opinion, they paused final decisions on pending benefit applications from certain countries and instructed officers to treat nationality from those countries as a significant negative factor when weighing discretionary benefits.

USCIS issued the policies after two proclamations from President Donald Trump governing the entry of foreign nationals. Marbley wrote that those proclamations did not address the adjudication of benefit applications and did not concern people already in the country. The plaintiffs argued the policies violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act, saying the agency unreasonably withheld action, acted arbitrarily, and skipped required notice-and-comment procedures.

The government countered that the policy documents were not final agency action and, in its words, "merely advise[] the public as to adjudication guidance being provided to USCIS personnel," according to the opinion. Marbley rejected the national security rationale as applied to people already living in the country. "Defendants fail to explain how a delay of a decision on pending immigration benefit applications for foreign nationals already within the United States could ameliorate any public safety or national security concern," he wrote. "Their arguments amount to nothing more than a talismanic invocation of national security."

Context

Marbley's ruling is one of a series against the same USCIS policies. In the opinion he cited roughly a dozen other federal courts that granted preliminary relief this year, including decisions in California, Massachusetts, Maryland, Arkansas, Indiana, and Washington, D.C. He also noted that Judge John J. McConnell in Rhode Island found the policies unlawful at summary judgment in June.

USCIS said it disagrees with the order but will comply while it weighs its next step. "USCIS strongly disagrees with the Court's order but will follow its terms pending possible further judicial review," the agency said in a public statement, adding that it "will issue updated instructions pending further litigation developments." The named defendants are USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

The order does not require USCIS to approve any application. It requires the agency to decide them under existing law rather than hold them because of where the applicant is from. Marbley also ordered the parties in two related Ohio cases, Nazari v. Edlow and Charles v. Edlow, to confer on whether his ruling resolves outstanding issues, and to report back within 60 days.