Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Defendants filed a notice informing the court that, pursuant to an internal USCIS review, USCIS has lifted a hold on applications associated with medical physicians, citing a USCIS update dated April 30, 2026; the notice was served on all registered users. The filing is informational and does not reflect a court order.

Defendants filed their reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claims, reiterating arguments that the claims are nonreviewable, unripe, and lack standing, and asking the court to grant government relief. The filing does not include any court ruling or scheduled court event.

Defendants filed an assented motion requesting a short extension of time to file their reply and response to the plaintiffs' recent filings, seeking to move the deadline from May 8 to May 11, 2026 at 5:00 p.m., and noting plaintiffs' consent; a certificate of service was filed. The docket indicates responses to that motion were due by 2026-05-19.

Plaintiffs filed a combined reply in support of their summary-judgment motion and opposition to defendants' cross-motion, asking the court to grant their motion, deny defendants' motions, vacate the challenged policies, and enter injunctive relief; a certificate of service was filed. The docket notes further replies were due by 2026-05-08.

Counsel filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw as attorney for the plaintiffs, stating the filer concluded their work with their employer and noting that other counsel continue to represent the plaintiffs; the filing indicates defendants do not oppose. The docket shows responses to that motion were due by 2026-05-08.

Defendants filed a combined cross-motion for summary judgment, a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claims, and an opposition to plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, arguing lack of jurisdiction and requesting alternative relief such as remand or limited injunctions. The docket indicates responses to this filing were due by 2026-05-08.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to find several challenged USCIS policies unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and to vacate and enjoin those policies, supported by declarations and a memorandum; a certificate of service was filed. The docket notes a response deadline of 2026-04-17 for opposing filings.

A motion was filed to admit an out-of-state attorney (Abbey Rutherford) pro hac vice, including local counsel sponsorship and the prospective admittee's bar and disciplinary attestations; no court action or scheduling is shown. The filing is limited to the pro hac vice motion and certifications.

A motion was filed to admit an out-of-state attorney (Golnaz Fakhimi) pro hac vice, with local counsel certifying review and the prospective admittee providing bar and disciplinary information; no court ruling is included. The submission is the standard pro hac vice application and certifications.

A motion was filed seeking pro hac vice admission for an out-of-state attorney (Melissa Keaney), accompanied by local counsel certification and the prospective admittee's bar-admissions and disciplinary answers; there is no court order included. The document is the routine pro hac vice motion and supporting attestations.

Defendants filed the certified Administrative Record, produced in three exhibits corresponding to three USCIS policy documents (including PM-602-0194), and served a certificate of service; no court order or deadline is included. The filing identifies which policy memoranda are contained in each exhibit and notes correspondence to records produced in other cases.

A motion was filed seeking pro hac vice admission for an out-of-state attorney (Anisa Rahim), with local counsel certifying review and the prospective admittee attesting to bar admissions and disciplinary history; no court action is included. The filing is the motion and associated certifications only.

On March 17, 2026, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Bolan filed a notice of appearance entering representation for the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS Director Joseph Edlow (in his official capacity), and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem (in her official capacity). The filing states it was served via the court’s ECF system and notes the government will later ask the Court to substitute Secretary Noem’s successor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

A motion was filed asking the court to admit an out-of-state attorney (Kalpana V. Peddibhotla) pro hac vice, including the usual certifications and a local counsel sponsorship; the filing does not include any court ruling. The form certifies the prospective admittee's bar status and disciplinary disclosures but does not show grant or denial.

The plaintiffs filed a joint motion asking the court to adopt an expedited summary-judgment briefing schedule, require defendants to produce the administrative record, relieve the parties of certain case-management and Rule 12 obligations pending resolution, and waive the Local Civ. R. 56(a) requirement to file Statements of Undisputed Facts. The docket entry indicates responses to the motion are due by 2026-03-27.

On 2026-03-09 the plaintiffs, through local counsel Amy R. Romero, filed a motion (with a $100 fee) seeking pro hac vice admission of Mona Iman to represent the plaintiffs; the filing supplies the prospective admittee's federal court admission date, disciplinary/criminal-history responses, and contact information. The entry indicates no court action, hearing date, or deadline was set on the face of the filing.

On 2026-03-09 the plaintiffs filed a motion (with a $100 fee, receipt ARIDC-2252076) asking the court to admit attorney Kristy Blumeyer-Martinez pro hac vice to represent the plaintiffs. The filing, submitted by local counsel Amy R. Romero, includes the prospective admittee's bar admissions, contact information, disciplinary/criminal disclosures, and signatures of both counsel and the prospective admittee.

The docket entry records a pro hac vice appearance on 2026-03-06. The entry does not identify who filed the appearance or indicate whether the court granted it.

All plaintiffs filed a motion seeking permission for attorney Anashua Dutta to appear pro hac vice; a $100 filing fee was paid (receipt ARIDC-2251453).

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to permit attorney Robin Thurston to appear pro hac vice; a $100 filing fee was paid (receipt ARIDC-2251456). The docket entry reflects the motion was filed on 2026-03-06.

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to allow attorney Catherine M.A. Carroll to appear pro hac vice; a $100 filing fee was paid (receipt ARIDC-2251454).

The docket entry appears to indicate a pro hac vice appearance was filed or recorded on 2026-03-06. The entry does not specify who filed it or whether the court granted the appearance.

The docket entry indicates the court issued summonses directed to the Department of Homeland Security, Joseph Edlow, Kristi Noem, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Attorney General.

On 2026-03-05 the plaintiffs filed a corporate disclosure statement in the case.

On 2026-03-05 the plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court and paid the $405 filing fee. The filing includes three memorandum exhibits, a civil cover sheet, and multiple summons forms addressed to various defendants.

The docket entry indicates the court issued a case opening notice (form attached) on 2026-03-05.