Today, May 7, 2026, a federal judge in Boston issued an order directing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to immediately lift the adjudicative hold on the pending applications of 266 plaintiffs in the consolidated Doe v. Trump litigation. The order also bars USCIS from applying the “significant negative factor” policy to those plaintiffs’ adjustment of status and work authorization applications. If you or a loved one is from one of the 39 countries on the current travel ban list and your green card, work permit, asylum, or naturalization case has been frozen since late 2025, this ruling matters, and we want to walk you through exactly what it does and does not do.
Key takeaways
- A federal judge in the District of Massachusetts (Judge Julia E. Kobick) ordered USCIS to immediately lift its adjudicative hold for 266 named plaintiffs in Doe v. Trump, including 99 plaintiffs in Doe II and 167 additional plaintiffs in Doe I.
- The court enjoined USCIS from enforcing Policy Memorandum 602-0192, Policy Memorandum 602-0194, and the “significant negative factor” policy in Policy Alert 2025-26 against those plaintiffs.
- The ruling does not lift the hold across the board. Applicants from the 39 countries who are not named plaintiffs in Doe v. Trump (or in another similar lawsuit) are still subject to the hold, although the legal momentum is moving against the policy.
What the court ordered today
Judge Kobick consolidated Abeer H. Doe et al. v. Trump (1:26-cv-11382) with Akmurat O. Doe et al. v. Trump (1:25-cv-13946) and extended the preliminary injunction first issued on April 30, 2026 to all the additional plaintiffs in both cases. The April 30 order had originally covered only 22 plaintiffs who had submitted declarations. Today’s order brings the total number of plaintiffs receiving relief to 266 (99 from Doe II plus the 167 plaintiffs in Doe I who were not covered by the April 30 ruling).
In plain terms, the court ordered the federal government to do three things for these 266 plaintiffs:
Stop applying the adjudicative hold. USCIS is enjoined from enforcing Policy Memoranda 602-0192 and 602-0194 against the plaintiffs’ pending benefit applications. These are the December 2, 2025 and January 1, 2026 memoranda that froze adjudication for nationals of the listed countries.
Immediately lift the existing hold. The court did not just freeze the policy going forward; it ordered USCIS to lift the hold currently in place on the plaintiffs’ cases. Their applications are supposed to start moving again.
Stop applying the “significant negative factor” policy. USCIS is also enjoined from enforcing Policy Alert 2025-26 against the plaintiffs’ adjustment of status (Form I-485) and work authorization (Form I-765) applications. That policy had directed officers to treat country of origin as a negative discretionary factor in those benefit decisions.
The court also waived any security requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The government did not concede the merits and has preserved its arguments for a potential appeal, which is something we will continue to track closely.
What is the adjudicative hold (and why was it imposed)?
To understand why today’s order matters, it helps to back up to late 2025 and early 2026.
On December 2, 2025, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum 602-0192, which directed adjudicators to place pending immigration benefit requests filed by nationals of nineteen “high-risk” countries into indefinite “security posture” holds. On January 1, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum 602-0194, which expanded that hold to nationals of all 39 countries on the January 1 travel ban list. The expanded memorandum also called for re-review of approved benefits granted on or after January 20, 2021 to people from those countries.
The hold has touched almost every category of immigration benefit, including Form I-130 family petitions, Form I-485 adjustment of status applications, Form N-400 naturalization applications, Form I-589 asylum applications, Form I-765 employment authorization documents, and Form I-129F fiancé(e) petitions. Public reporting indicated that nearly half of the cases in USCIS’s queue were affected by the pause.
The “significant negative factor” policy in Policy Alert 2025-26 sat alongside the hold. It instructed adjudicators to treat an applicant’s nationality from one of the listed countries as a negative discretionary factor when deciding whether to approve adjustment of status or work authorization, even in cases where the application was technically eligible.
Why the court struck the policy down (for now, for these plaintiffs)
In her April 30, 2026 Memorandum and Order (which today’s order incorporates), Judge Kobick found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court rejected the government’s stated rationale for a categorical, indefinite hold based on country of origin, and found that USCIS does not have authority to perpetually decline to adjudicate applications that Congress and agency regulations require it to decide. The court also found that the plaintiffs were suffering irreparable harm from being placed in indefinite limbo on green card, asylum, naturalization, and work authorization decisions.
Judge Kobick is not the only federal judge to reach that conclusion. By late April, at least nine federal courts had blocked the adjudicative hold for individual or group plaintiffs, including rulings in the Western District of Arkansas (Karimi v. Mullin), the District of Maryland (Saghafi v. Edlow), and the Northern District of California (Meschi v. Edlow). Every court that has reached the merits of the policy has found it likely unlawful. Today’s consolidated order in Doe v. Trump is the broadest single ruling so far in terms of the number of named plaintiffs it covers.
Who is covered by today’s order (and who is not)
This is the part we want every reader to understand carefully, because it is easy to misread the headlines.
Covered: The 266 named plaintiffs in the consolidated Doe v. Trump litigation. For those plaintiffs, USCIS is under a court order to lift the hold and resume normal adjudication of their pending applications. They are also protected from the “significant negative factor” policy in their I-485 and I-765 cases.
Not covered: Everyone else from the 39 countries who is not a named plaintiff in Doe v. Trump (or in one of the other similar federal suits that have produced their own injunctions). USCIS can technically continue applying the hold to applicants who are not parties to a court order. The agency has not lifted the policy on a nationwide basis, and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on the government’s likely appeal.
That said, the legal trajectory is clear. Each new ruling makes it harder for the government to defend the policy, and it strengthens the position of any attorney bringing an individual federal-court challenge on behalf of a single applicant. We are monitoring all of these cases closely because they directly shape how we advise affected clients.
The 39 countries on the current travel ban list
For reference, the countries currently subject to the USCIS adjudicative hold under PM-602-0194 are:
Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burma (Myanmar), Burundi, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, The Gambia, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Travel-document holders endorsed by the Palestinian Authority are also included.
Several of these countries have large communities in Central Florida, including nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nigeria, which is part of why we are paying close attention to this litigation.
What this means if your case has been on hold
If you are from one of the 39 countries and your USCIS case has been stuck since December 2025 or January 2026, here is the practical picture as of today:
If you are a named plaintiff in Doe v. Trump or another federal suit that has produced an injunction covering you, USCIS is now under a court order to resume adjudication of your case. You should expect movement in the coming weeks and watch your USCIS account and physical mail closely for receipts, requests for evidence, and decisions.
If you are not a plaintiff in any current lawsuit, your case is still subject to the hold. The right next step depends entirely on the specifics of your situation, including which form you filed, when you filed it, what relief you are seeking, your immigration history, and whether you have a viable claim for individual federal-court relief or another administrative remedy. There is no single answer that fits everyone, and we strongly caution against making decisions based on social media advice or based on one neighbor’s case outcome.
If you are considering filing a new application in one of these benefit categories, the hold technically applies to new filings as well, although there are limited exceptions in the underlying policy memoranda. Whether and when to file is a strategic decision that should be made with full awareness of the current litigation landscape.
How we can help
Our founding attorney, Denisse Ilabaca, is Board Certified in Immigration and Nationality Law by The Florida Bar, a distinction held by fewer than two percent of Florida attorneys. Our firm regularly represents clients across the full range of benefit applications affected by this hold, including adjustment of status, green card and permanent residency cases, asylum claims, employment authorization, and naturalization applications.
If your case has been frozen under the adjudicative hold, we can sit down with you, review the specific posture of your file, and walk you through the realistic options available given the current state of the litigation. That may include monitoring for further court orders, evaluating whether your facts support an individual federal-court challenge, identifying any narrow exception that may apply to your specific category, or simply giving you an honest read on what to expect over the next several months. We do not promise outcomes, and we do not push every client toward litigation. We focus on giving you accurate information and a clear-eyed strategy.
Call us at (407) 917-2087 to schedule a consultation, or visit our immigration practice page to see the full range of cases we handle.
Frequently asked questions
Does today’s ruling automatically restart my case if I am from one of the 39 countries?
Only if you are a named plaintiff in Doe v. Trump or another suit that has produced an injunction covering you. If you are not a plaintiff in any of those cases, the hold technically still applies to your file, even though the legal momentum is moving against the policy.
Can the government appeal?
Yes. The defendants preserved all of their previously raised arguments and can pursue an appeal to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. We will be watching that closely. The April 30 order has not been stayed.
What forms are affected by the adjudicative hold?
Per the underlying policy memoranda, the hold has been applied broadly across pending benefit requests, including I-130, I-485, I-765, N-400, I-589, I-129F, and others, with limited exceptions. The “significant negative factor” policy applies specifically to I-485 and I-765 adjudications.
I am a national of one of the 39 countries and want to file a green card application now. Should I wait?
There is no universal answer. The right approach depends on your underlying eligibility, your immigration history, the relief you are seeking, and your tolerance for delay. We can review your specific facts and give you a clear recommendation.
I think I might want to file my own federal-court challenge. Is that something your firm handles?
Federal-court challenges to USCIS delays and policies are case-specific and resource-intensive. We can evaluate the facts of your situation and let you know whether a federal-court remedy is realistic for you, what it would involve, and what the likely timeline and cost would be.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Ilabaca Law, PLLC. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific, and the Doe v. Trump litigation is ongoing and subject to appeal. If you have questions about your specific case, please contact a qualified immigration attorney to discuss your situation.