A federal court has vacated the USCIS policies that paused adjudication of immigration benefits for nationals of the travel-ban countries, and USCIS has publicly acknowledged that those policies are no longer in effect. So far, however, the agency’s acknowledgment has not been matched by any visible change in how quickly affected cases are actually moving. This post explains the gap — and what employers and their affected employees can do about it.

What Happened, Briefly

On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, vacated four USCIS policies — the Global Asylum Hold, Benefits Hold, Comprehensive Re-Review, and Country-Specific Factors policies — as unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court entered final judgment on June 11, and USCIS has since acknowledged that the underlying issuances (PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and PA-2025-26) should be treated as though they are not in effect, agency-wide. The government has appealed to the First Circuit; absent a stay, USCIS remains obligated to comply in the meantime. (Several firms have published detailed procedural recaps, so we will not repeat the blow-by-blow here.)

The Talk Has Not Yet Matched the Walk

Despite the acknowledgment, we have not seen meaningful swings in adjudication speed, nor anecdotal evidence of long-delayed cases suddenly being adjudicated. For many affected applicants, little has changed on the ground. The vacatur is in effect and the agency says it is complying — but “complying” has not yet translated into visible movement on cases that were paused.

That said, the public acknowledgment has real practical value: it gives those who were negatively affected by the holds a concrete basis to press USCIS for timely adjudication of their cases.

What Affected Employers and Employees Can Do

Cases in premium processing. The most direct route is to email the premium processing unit handling the case, point to the vacatur and USCIS’s own acknowledgment, and request that adjudication proceed within the premium processing timeframe. If USCIS does not respond or act, litigation — such as a mandamus action to compel the agency to adjudicate — may become necessary.

Cases not in premium processing. The path here is harder. There is no easy channel to communicate directly with USCIS, and the agency’s lengthy published processing times often make it impossible even to submit a case inquiry — because a case is not treated as outside “normal” processing time until it exceeds those posted benchmarks, which themselves continue to lengthen. For cases that have been pending well beyond a reasonable period, litigation may ultimately be the most effective way to compel action.

Advocacy Through Congressional Offices and Business Groups

Beyond direct outreach to USCIS, affected employers and employees can use their relationships to apply pressure — an approach that is especially useful where the agency’s standard inquiry tools are unavailable.

Congressional offices. Members of Congress — in both the House and the Senate — maintain casework staff who can submit inquiries to USCIS through the agency’s congressional liaison channels. This route is particularly valuable for cases outside premium processing, where the usual online inquiry options are closed: a constituent, or their employer, can ask their representative’s office to open a congressional inquiry on a delayed case (the office will typically need a signed privacy release first). Pointing the office to USCIS’s own acknowledgment that the hold policies are no longer in effect gives the inquiry added force.

Chambers of commerce and business associations. Employers can also work through local and national chambers of commerce and industry or trade associations to raise the systemic impact of the continuing delays. Coordinated advocacy — consolidating many affected cases into a single message to USCIS leadership and to congressional offices — can carry more weight than individual inquiries and underscores the real economic stakes for employers and their workforces.

Bottom Line

USCIS has said the right things; whether its adjudication follows remains to be seen. Employers should identify matters that were delayed under the vacated policies now and pursue the available levers — direct outreach for premium processing cases, congressional and business-group advocacy where direct channels are closed, and litigation held in reserve if the agency does not respond. We are continuing to monitor the First Circuit appeal and are happy to advise on case-specific strategy.