USCIS Adjudication Pause39 Countries Affected
Raising awareness, providing information, and tracking legal challenges to the USCIS adjudication pause (PM-602-0192 & PM-602-0194) that has frozen immigration benefits for nationals of 39 countries.
127+
Days Since Pause Began
$1B+
In Fees Collected, Never Processed
2M+
Applications Affected
1M+
Asylum Cases Halted
39
Countries Subject to Benefits Hold
Policy Status
Partially BlockedUpdated Apr 4, 2026Three federal courts have granted individual plaintiffs relief blocking the adjudication hold. On Feb 20, 2026, Judge Van Keulen (N.D. Cal.) ordered the government to adjudicate 2 individuals' applications within 30 days. On Feb 27, 2026, Judge Kelley (D. Mass.) ordered adjudication of 1 individual's employment authorization within 10 days. On Mar 26, 2026, Judge Ellis (N.D. Ill.) granted a TRO to an Iranian national on an employment-based adjustment of status, finding the hold likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA. All three courts found the hold likely violates the APA and exceeds statutory authority. Relief in each case is limited to the individual plaintiff only — the hold remains in effect for everyone else. Additional cases pending nationwide.
Latest Developments
Recent activity across all tracked cases
Get court filing alerts
NewWe'll email you when significant new filings are detected.
The docket entry records a voluntary dismissal of party(ies) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The entry provides no details about which party or parties were dismissed or any other specifics.
The court granted in part the defendants' March 9, 2026 motion for an extension, allowing a 30‑day extension rather than the requested 60 days, and ordered the defendants to file an answer or other responsive pleading by the end of May 4, 2026. The order also warned that any further extension must show specific good cause; no hearing was set.
On April 3, 2026, the eight nonprofit and labor-organization plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 seeking judgment on Counts I–III to challenge four USCIS policies (a halt to all asylum adjudications; a halt to adjudications for nationals of 39 countries subject to an “Entry Ban”; reconsideration of past grants for people from Entry Ban countries who entered the U.S. since January 20, 2021; and direction to consider country of origin as a negative discretionary factor). The filing includes a memorandum, declarations from each plaintiff, a request for oral argument, and a certificate of service; the docket notes the court’s March 17, 2026 minute order excused Local Rule 56(a) statements, and the entry does not identify any hearing date, briefing deadlines, or a court ruling.
On 2026-04-02 the summons was returned executed as to the United States, indicating the government has been served with the complaint.
This filing is the plaintiffs’ reply to the defendants’ April 1 status report (dkt. 70), arguing that USCIS did not issue the promised operational guidance by the 90‑day deadlines and that recent agency statements show certain benefits (OPT for Iranian nationals) are being treated as “banned” and “will not be processed,” which plaintiffs contend reflects final agency action and a new rationale (protecting U.S. STEM wages). The reply reiterates plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, cites the February 13, 2026 hearing transcript and other record materials, distinguishes recent case law, and was served on defendants via CM/ECF on April 2, 2026; it does not record any court order or new hearing date.
Impact Stories
Real stories from people affected by the pause
I am an Iranian who came to the United States legally to pursue my master’s degree at the University of Southern California. I invested a huge amount in tuition and worked up to 20 hours a week while studying so I could reduce the financial pressure on my parents. It was not easy, but I worked hard because I believed I was building a future through education, sacrifice, and honest effort. After graduating, I finally started to feel a sense of stability. I have now been working for about a year, paying taxes, contributing to this country’s economy, and trying to build a life here. Like many others in my situation, I followed the rules, did everything the right way, and carried the hope that hard work and perseverance would lead to security. Now that hope feels deeply shaken. I am hearing that even basic parts of our lives, such as our REAL ID or driver’s license, may be taken away. The idea that everything we have worked for, our plans, our stability, and our future, could suddenly disappear is devastating. At the same time, we are carrying the emotional weight of war, fear for our homeland, and constant worry about our families. The pressure is overwhelming. We do not even have regular access to our loved ones for emotional support, and that isolation makes everything worse. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking to be seen as human beings who came here legally, studied, worked, paid taxes, and tried to build a future with dignity like so many other nationalities. The uncertainty, fear, and emotional burden we are living under are more than most people can imagine.
— Donya D, California
I am Iranian, and I came to the United States legally to study biomedical informatics and build a future through research and work. I worked hard during my studies and hoped to start my career after graduation. However, my OPT application has been paused for over five months with no updates. I am unable to work, which has caused serious financial hardship and left me unable to support myself. I also had a surgery several months ago, and without health insurance, I cannot continue necessary follow-up care. This situation has affected both my financial stability and my health. This pause has put my life on hold and left me in constant uncertainty. I respectfully ask for action so people like me can move forward and contribute to society.
— Sepideh S, Texas
I am a U.S. citizen living in California, and my husband is an Iranian national. We have been waiting for years to complete his immigrant visa process so we could finally live together as a married couple. After his interview at the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi, his case remained in Administrative Processing for about one year. Eventually, we were informed that the Administrative Processing was completed and his case was fully cleared. We were told that the visa was ready to be issued, and we believed our long wait was finally coming to an end. However, just before his visa could be issued, the Presidential Proclamation went into effect, and we were notified that his visa could not be issued because of this policy. Every required step in our case has already been completed, and we are now stuck at the very final stage — unable to move forward only because of this new restriction. My husband is currently in Iran, and due to the recent war-related conditions and ongoing security concerns, I am deeply worried about his safety. I had planned to travel to Iran to be with him, but because of the dangerous situation, I am unable to go. We remain separated despite having completed the entire immigration process. This situation has affected every part of our lives — emotionally, financially, and mentally. We have followed all the rules, waited patiently for years, and reached the final step, only to be stopped at the last moment. I am sharing our story because I hope decision-makers and the public understand the real human impact of these policies on families like ours who only want to live together safely
— parnian naseh, California
Hi, before I share my story I would love to ask you readers a question. Have you guys ever been judged based on your country of birth? Wild statement isn't it? well it's not that surprising because it's exactly what the US government is doing. I came to the United States on parole program, and I applied for my adjustment of status paid the fees did my biometrics just for me to be stuck in a loophole because of my country of origin. According to the US government I'm from a high-risk country and therefore I might be a national risk, I can guarantee that I'm not. I'm asking to be judged based on my background based on my criminal record, which is flawless by the way, plus I'm just an 18 years old who recently graduated and who wants to go to college. I'm not a threat to anyone, I did everything right, but I would like to apologize for not being born in Europe since the world doesn't see my people as people.
— MJ, Florida
Know a case we should track?
Submit a CourtListener docket URL and we'll review it.
Tracked Lawsuits
Federal cases challenging the adjudication pause
30
Total Cases
30
Active Cases
0
Resolved / Dismissed
The plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief challenging application of recent USCIS policy memoranda. The court has already granted the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a preliminary injunction ordering adjudication of a pending I-765 and enjoining application of the December 2, 2025 and January 1, 2026 USCIS memoranda to that I-765; defendants have sought and (per the court record) obtained an extension to May 14, 2026 to file their answer or other response. Service has been executed and the parties have litigated the emergency motion, including a status conference and briefing.
The petitioner filed a complaint and successive amended complaints challenging a USCIS policy; motions and case-management proceedings have followed, including a motion for a preliminary injunction that the court issued an order on February 20, 2026. Defendants have sought extensions and a motion to dismiss is due April 10, 2026, while the court has also directed parties to file consent/declination forms to proceed before a magistrate judge and a consent/declination was filed on April 7, 2026. Multiple discovery and administrative filings are pending and a case management conference and motion hearings have already occurred.
The plaintiff filed a complaint in early March 2026 and sought to proceed under a pseudonym and to file materials under seal; counsel entered appearances and summonses were issued and returned executed to multiple defendants. The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, the government opposed, the plaintiff replied, the court held a telephonic conference and scheduled a hearing, and on March 26, 2026 the court granted a TRO enjoining application of the adjudication-hold in PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 to the plaintiff's pending I-485, I-765, I-131, and I-485 Supplement J and ordered those forms to be adjudicated and the plaintiff notified; the court found the plaintiff likely to succeed on an APA claim but declined to set a short adjudication deadline or require a bond.
The complaint and emergency motions (including a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for a preliminary injunction) are pending. A status conference was held on April 1, 2026, and the judge indicated she would be willing to temporarily stay application of the challenged USCIS memoranda to the plaintiffs but declined to enter such relief without information identifying the plaintiffs; she ordered the parties to confer and file a proposed administrative-stay order by April 10, 2026.
The plaintiffs have an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction challenging USCIS Policy Memoranda PM‑602‑0192 and PM‑602‑0194; the court held a hearing on the preliminary‑injunction motion on February 13, 2026 and took the matter under advisement. Briefing has continued with multiple supplemental filings and notices of supplemental authority, but there is no docketed court ruling granting or denying injunctive relief in this case yet.
The case is active and pending before the court. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that was orally argued on March 18, 2026 and taken under advisement; the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss and submitted other responses and notices, and both sides have continued to file supplemental materials in early April 2026. No final ruling on the preliminary injunction or the motion to dismiss is reflected in the docket entries provided.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint challenging USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194 and moved for a preliminary injunction; a hearing on that motion was held on March 3, 2026. The court directed the parties to provide a chart and later ordered defendants to report whether the March 30, 2026 USCIS web update lifted holds as to any plaintiff; defendants filed a response to those orders and Plaintiffs' notice on April 7, 2026.
The petitioner filed a complaint seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief in December 2025 and the summons was returned executed against the government. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (entry 10), the petitioner filed an opposition on 3/6/2026, and the defendants filed a reply on 3/13/2026; other docket entries labeled "Dismiss" and an "Order ... Terminate Motions" appear earlier in February 2026 but their precise procedural effect is unclear from the entries provided. As of the latest entry, the Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed and awaiting a court ruling.
The plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and petition for writ of mandamus on December 31, 2025; summons were issued and returned executed and defense counsel was designated. The court has granted an extension for the defendants to answer, set the responsive-pleading deadline for April 20, 2026, and rescheduled the initial scheduling conference to May 19, 2026 with a requirement that the parties submit a joint scheduling report at least seven days beforehand.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus on 2026-03-17 and moved for a preliminary injunction on 2026-03-31. Service on the defendants was returned executed and an answer is due 2026-05-22; the court scheduled a remote hearing on the preliminary injunction for 2026-04-14. A response to a motion was filed on 2026-04-07, but the docket entry does not identify the filer or indicate any court ruling.
The plaintiff filed a complaint and later a first amended complaint challenging USCIS policy memoranda and has moved for a preliminary injunction. Defendants have appeared, sought and received an extension to respond, filed a motion to dismiss and an opposition to the preliminary injunction, and the administrative record for the policy memoranda was filed; a hearing on the motion to dismiss and the injunction is set for April 16, 2026. One defendant was the subject of a plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint challenging USCIS policy memoranda and several plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. The clerk issued summonses and the summonses were returned executed; one plaintiff voluntarily dismissed; the defendants filed an opposition on 2026-03-30 and a reply to that opposition was filed on 2026-04-06. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for 04/24/2026 before the assigned magistrate judge, and the court previously denied a motion to relate cases.
The petitioner filed a complaint for writ of mandamus, and the court has already entered a temporary restraining order and a class‑certification entry. Summonses were issued and at least one was returned executed as to the defendants, and the court has now issued a March 26 order governing joint responses, timing for responsive pleadings, page limits, and potential sanctions for noncompliance; that order did not set any hearing dates.
The complaint was filed on March 20, 2026, and proof of service was filed on March 24, 2026. Several individual plaintiffs have filed notices of voluntary dismissal on March 29, March 30, and April 1, 2026, and this April 6 entry records an additional voluntary dismissal; a motion for a preliminary injunction challenging USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194 has been filed and is set for hearing on May 8, 2026 before Judge John W. Holcomb.
The plaintiffs filed a mandamus and declaratory-judgment complaint in December 2025 and the case is proceeding before Judge Jacqueline Becerra. The court has set a schedule requiring defendants to file the certified administrative record and ordered subsequent summary-judgment briefing; an expedited motion for preliminary injunction has also been filed and remains pending. On March 5, 2026, the court granted the defendants' motion to file certain materials under seal.
The plaintiff has filed a complaint challenging USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194 and moved for a preliminary injunction; the court set a briefing schedule requiring defendants to respond and the plaintiff to reply. Defendants filed a response and the plaintiff filed reply briefs and several notices of supplemental authority; on March 7 the plaintiff added USCIS communications showing her I-131 and I-765 remain pending with no completion date. There is no court ruling on the preliminary injunction or other dispositive relief reflected in the docket entries provided.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and petition for mandamus, and subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction. The defendant was served and has appeared; the parties consented to magistrate jurisdiction and the court granted the defendant leave to file an oversized response and issued directions regarding an extension request. The plaintiffs have now filed a reply to the defendant's response to the preliminary injunction motion, and the court has not yet entered a ruling on that motion.
The plaintiff(s) filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and mandamus on January 30, 2026. Summonses were issued and returned executed as to the federal defendant on February 17, 2026, and the parties have filed litigation papers including a document titled "Preliminary Injunction," an opposition brief, and a reply; on March 30, 2026 the defendants filed a consent motion to stay with a proposed order. The docket does not show a court decision on the stay or on the preliminary injunction motion.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint on March 5 challenging multiple USCIS policy documents, and summonses were issued to the defendants. Plaintiffs have sought pro hac vice admissions for outside counsel and jointly moved for expedited summary judgment briefing, and on March 25 the government formally produced the certified administrative record for the November, December, and January memoranda (including PM‑602‑0194); no court rulings or hearing dates are reflected in the provided docket entries.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint challenging two USCIS policy memoranda and have moved for a preliminary injunction and for discovery; the defendants have responded and the parties have exchanged briefing. The docket shows service of the summons, multiple extensions granted by the court, a withdrawal of an expedited discovery request and lodging of the administrative record, counsel changes, and the plaintiffs recently submitted supplemental authority for the court to consider.
The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus, and summonses were issued. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, the opposing party filed a response, and a reply to that response was filed on 2026-04-06; counsel for the government has entered an appearance. There are no court rulings or dispositive orders reflected in the provided entries.
The litigation remains active: the court previously entered a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction in January 2026 concerning the December 15, 2025 Family Reunification Parole Federal Register notice, and multiple appeals have been filed. Plaintiffs have challenged defendants' March 6, 2026 corrected administrative record by moving for an order to show cause or to strike the supplementation; defendants have responded with a supplemental opposition explaining the omission and certification of five documents and requesting denial of plaintiffs' challenge. The plaintiffs' motion to show cause remains pending and the court has ordered further briefing on the corrected record.
The plaintiff filed a complaint in December 2025 and an amended complaint on March 11, 2026. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 11, which the court denied without prejudice on March 17; the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on March 18, and briefing on the pending motions (including defendants' response and the plaintiffs' reply) is ongoing.
The petitioner filed a complaint and an amended complaint and moved for a preliminary injunction; summonses were issued to the agency defendants. The court has now granted a joint motion to hold the petitioner’s amended preliminary‑injunction motion in abeyance while the agency may adjudicate the petitioner’s Form I‑290B, vacated the prior PI schedule, and imposed a short alternative briefing schedule and notice requirements if no agency adjudication is filed by the specified dates.
The petitioner filed a complaint in late March and the court issued intake and procedural documents. The summons was returned executed on April 2, indicating the United States has been served, and a consent/declination form regarding a magistrate judge was filed; there are no reported court rulings, hearings, or merits decisions in the docket entries provided.
The plaintiff filed a complaint on January 28, 2026, and the case was referred to a magistrate judge on January 29, 2026. The summons was returned executed for a defendant (Anthony Jackson) showing service on February 20, 2026, with an answer due April 21, 2026, and counsel filed a notice of appearance on March 18, 2026.
A multi-plaintiff complaint challenging the challenged policy was filed and a temporary restraining order appears on the docket (the docket also shows a seal). Plaintiffs' counsel has entered appearances. The most recent entry designates a U.S. Attorney to represent the federal defendants.
The plaintiff filed suit against the agency and related defendants and the docket shows summonses were issued and returned executed, indicating defendants have been served. The case record includes temporary restraining order(s) and related court orders, filings by the parties (including a response to a motion and notices of appearance), and the court has now authorized the plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym.
The plaintiff filed a mandamus complaint on January 5, 2026 seeking adjudication of a long‑pending asylum application and the defendants were served in January. Defendants requested a 60‑day extension to respond; the court granted a shorter, 30‑day extension and ordered an answer or other response due by May 4, 2026. There are no court hearings scheduled and the next clear deadline is the defendants' responsive pleading deadline.
This matter is newly filed: a large group of petitioners, represented by counsel, filed a complaint against USCIS and DHS and the court record shows the filing fee was paid and summonses were prepared for the defendants. There are no court rulings, hearings, or other judicial actions recorded yet.