A federal judge in Rhode Island vacated USCIS processing freezes affecting nationals from 39 countries, finding the policy pretextual and unlawful under the APA.
U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. of the District of Rhode Island vacated a set of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that had imposed indefinite holds on immigration benefit applications for nationals from 39 countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East [1]. The freeze had suspended processing of green card petitions, work permit applications, and naturalization ceremonies [1]. The court ordered USCIS to resume processing those applications and to schedule pending naturalization ceremonies [2].
The policies took effect after a November 2025 shooting involving a National Guard member, which the administration cited as a national security basis for the across-the-board suspension [1]. Plaintiffs, including the National Iranian American Council, challenged the freeze in federal court in Providence [2]. Chief Judge McConnell found that USCIS asserted authority it did not hold under the Administrative Procedure Act, failed to supply adequate reasoning for the suspension, and disregarded the reliance interests of applicants who had begun or advanced the immigration process in good faith [2]. The court further found that the national security rationale was pretextual and masked an anti-immigrant purpose [1].
The ruling is substantively significant on several grounds. First, it applies the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard to a blanket, country-of-origin processing halt, a mechanism the administration had framed as an executive prerogative outside ordinary notice-and-comment requirements [2]. Second, the court's finding of pretext, grounded in the agency's failure to connect the November 2025 incident to the specific populations affected, raises the evidentiary bar the government would face on appeal [1]. Third, the geographic breadth of the affected class,39 countries representing hundreds of thousands of pending cases, makes the practical reach of the order among the widest of any single APA challenge to immigration processing policy in recent years [1].
The government faces several immediate decisions. It may seek a stay of the order pending appeal to the First Circuit, a motion that would require demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm from resumed processing [2]. Absent a stay, USCIS must begin adjudicating the backlog and contact applicants whose naturalization ceremonies were deferred [1]. Immigration practitioners should audit pending matters in the affected cohort and monitor USCIS operational guidance, which the agency will likely issue in response to the order [2].