Federal Judge Rejects USCIS Pause on Immigration Applications

A federal judge on April 30 rejected key parts of the Trump administration’s policies preventing adjudication of immigration benefit applications, determining that an indefinite “adjudicative hold” and treating nationality as a “significant negative factor” are likely to be found unlawful.

U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick in Massachusetts permitted a partial preliminary injunction for approximately two dozen named plaintiffs in the case Akmurat O. Doe et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.

The order calls for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to swiftly remove the adjudicative hold on its pending applications and cease applying the nationality-based negative factor to adjustment of status and work authorization cases.

“On the merits, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the adjudicative hold policy is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious, and on their claim that the significant negative factor policy is contrary to law insofar as it applies to applications for adjustment of status and work authorization,” Kobick wrote. 

The ruling is a response to challenges from about 200 noncitizens and family members, many of whom hail from countries subject to the administration’s broadened vetting. More than half the plaintiffs come from Iran. Others come from nations including Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, and numerous African countries.

“But the government has failed to explain how enjoining application of the adjudicative hold and significant negative factor policies as to the plaintiffs inhibits the government’s ability to protect national security,” the judge stated. 

The Trump administration policies follow several executive actions and decrees designed to tighten controls on immigration.

USCIS issued the “significant negative factor” policy on Nov. 27, 2025, in the wake of the shooting of two National Guard members near the White House by an Afghan national who had arrived under the Biden administration and who was illegally present in the country at the time of the shooting.

USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow said on X at the time that the agency paused all asylum decisions and visa issuance for Afghan nationals “until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible,” and “the safety of the American people always comes first.”

In December 2025, immigration applications from 19 countries were paused, implemented in the name of national security. In early 2026, the United States paused immigrant visa processing for applicants from 75 countries.

The plaintiffs say the policies violated statutory duties to adjudicate applications within a reasonable time under the Administrative Procedure Act and immigration law, arguing the nationality-based factor represented prohibited discrimination. The judge found the plaintiffs showed irreparable harm, such as financial losses, professional setbacks, and family separation risks.

The plaintiffs have “demonstrated that they are likely to face irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief,” Kobick wrote. Any potential government harm was “outweighed by the harm to the plaintiffs,” she said. 

The injunction applies specifically to the 22 plaintiffs who demonstrated harm. The parties must determine whether it should extend to others in the case and file a status report by May 7.

The Trump administration argued the measures are necessary to vet individuals amid national security threats. Officials evoked prior incidents and deficiencies in information-sharing from certain countries. By April, the administration continued processing certain asylum claims for “eligible and vetted individuals” under an internal review process. 

The case is ongoing, as plaintiffs want further relief. The government, however, could appeal the preliminary injunction to the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.