Introduction
A federal district court has blocked two USCIS policy memoranda. Those memoranda had placed adjudication holds on immigration benefit applications filed by nationals from dozens of designated countries. On August 24, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an injunction. The case is Red Eagle Law, L.C., et al., v. Joseph B. Edlow. The injunction orders USCIS to resume processing applications under its normal adjudication procedures. Thousands of applicants had their cases frozen under these USCIS adjudication hold policies. For them, this court order represents a significant development in their path toward a final decision.
Background
Two Presidential Proclamations rooted the two enjoined policy memoranda. USCIS had issued these memoranda as agency directives: PM-602-0192, issued December 2, 2025, and PM-602-0194, issued January 1, 2026. Presidential Proclamation 10949 was signed June 4, 2025. It restricted the entry of foreign nationals from certain countries on national security and public safety grounds. Presidential Proclamation 10998, signed December 16, 2025, expanded or supplemented those restrictions. Together, these proclamations identified 39 countries whose nationals became subject to enhanced scrutiny or entry limitations. USCIS issued the policy memoranda to implement adjudication holds for benefit applications filed by nationals of those designated countries. This effectively paused case processing while the administration cited the need to strengthen its screening and vetting processes.
What Is Changing
The court’s injunction prohibits USCIS from continuing to enforce the adjudication holds established by PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194. The order requires USCIS to adjudicate applications in the normal course of its standard process. This means the agency can no longer suspend or defer action on applications based solely on these two policy memoranda.
The court also granted class certification in the case. This extends the injunction’s protection beyond the named plaintiffs to a defined class of affected individuals. USCIS has stated publicly that it disagrees with the court’s order. It will comply with its terms, though, while exploring possible further judicial review. USCIS has also indicated it will issue updated operational instructions as the litigation continues to develop.
Who Is Affected
The certified class covers a specific and substantial population. To fall within the class, an individual must meet one condition. That person must be a citizen or native of one of the 39 countries named in Presidential Proclamation 10949 or 10998, or of the Palestinian Authority. That individual must also have a qualifying benefit application pending with USCIS. This can be an asylum application filed on Form I-589. It can also be another immigration benefit application subject to the holds imposed by the two policy memoranda. Critically, the class includes only applicants whose applications remained unadjudicated. The government must not have finally adjudicated them as of the date the court granted class certification.
Individuals who are citizens or nationals of countries not listed in either Presidential Proclamation are not class members. Many of those applicants, though, were never subject to the holds in the first place. The class definition also excludes those whose cases had already reached final adjudication before class certification. This includes cases that were approved, denied, or otherwise closed.
Practical Implications
What This Means for Pending Applications
The injunction affects applicants who fall within the certified class. For them, it means their cases should now move forward under USCIS’s standard processing procedures. Suppose your I-589 or other pending benefit application had been sitting without movement since late 2025 or early 2026. One of these now-enjoined holds may well have caused the delay. The court order does not guarantee a specific processing timeline. It does, however, remove the legal basis for USCIS to maintain an indefinite adjudication freeze on your file.
For asylum applicants specifically, the stakes are particularly high. Delays in I-589 adjudication can affect work authorization eligibility and derivative benefits for family members. They can also affect the ability to travel or access other protections. If USCIS complies fully with the order and resumes normal processing, that resumption could materially change the outlook. Cases that have languished for months could finally move forward.
Implications for Employers and Open Litigation Questions
Employers and petitioners with employment-based benefit applications for nationals of the 39 designated countries should also take note. If a pending petition or application was subject to one of these holds, it too falls within the class definition. It should be eligible for normal processing under the injunction. HR professionals and in-house immigration teams managing large employee populations from affected countries should audit pending filings. This will help them assess which cases may now move forward.
One area requiring close attention is USCIS’s statement that it will issue updated operational instructions as litigation continues. This means questions remain about the practical mechanics of how the agency resumes processing. Open issues include which applications it will prioritize, whether any interim procedures apply, and how officers will handle files that have sat on hold for extended periods. The court’s order establishes the legal obligation; the operational reality will depend on guidance USCIS has not yet published.
It also bears noting that USCIS explicitly reserved the right to seek further judicial review. The injunction is a court order at the district court level and is subject to appeal. The status of the holds could shift again if USCIS or the administration pursues a stay or appeals to the Ninth Circuit. Applicants and their representatives should treat this as an active litigation situation requiring ongoing monitoring, not a final resolution.
What to Watch For Next
Stakeholders should monitor USCIS’s forthcoming operational instructions, which the agency has committed to issuing as the litigation develops. Those instructions will clarify how the agency intends to implement the court’s order in practice. Attorneys, applicants, and employers should also watch for any motion by the government to stay the injunction pending appeal. Such a motion would give the agency the most immediate mechanism to temporarily reinstate the hold policies. Any Ninth Circuit activity in this case — whether a stay request, a merits appeal, or an en banc consideration — would carry significant downstream implications for the entire certified class.
How Immigration Professional Association Can Help
Immigration Professional Association has direct experience navigating the kind of rapidly shifting adjudication landscape this case represents. For applicants from affected countries whose I-589 asylum applications or other benefit petitions have stalled, our team can review the current status of a pending case, assess whether it falls within the certified class, and develop a strategy for engaging USCIS now that a court has ordered normal processing to resume.
For employers managing workforce populations from any of the 39 designated countries, this is an appropriate moment to conduct a thorough audit of pending petitions and applications. Immigration Professional Association regularly works with employers and HR teams to manage exactly this kind of compliance review — identifying which cases the hold affects, which require immediate attention, and how to position filings for the most efficient possible adjudication once an agency lifts a hold.
This is a situation where timing, documentation, and informed case management can meaningfully affect outcomes. If you believe your case or your organization’s filings may fall within the scope of this court order, we encourage you to connect with Immigration Professional Association to discuss what the Red Eagle Law injunction means for your specific circumstances.
