Introduction

On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump enacted Presidential Proclamation 10949. This Proclamation restricted the entry of foreign nationals to protect the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats.[i] Proclamation 10949 was a stepping stone in the policy behind enacting Executive Order 14161, which sought to protect the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats.[ii] In enacting Proclamation 10949, President Trump stated “that the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests.”[iii]

President Trump then directed multiple heads of federal departments to identify countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries.[iv] Ultimately, this resulted in full suspension of entry for nationals of twelve countries and partial suspension of entry for nationals of an additional seven countries.[v]

On December 16, 2025, President Trump then enacted Presidential Proclamation 10998.[vi] This Proclamation, which is an extension of Proclamation 10949 to further the Policy of Executive Order 14161, furthered the measures listed out in Proclamation 10949.[vii] Proclamation 10998 modified the list of countries whose nationals are suspended or limited from entering the United States entry to thirty-nine.[viii]

Adjudication Holds

On January 1, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a Policy Memorandum (PM-602-0194).[ix] The purpose of PM-602-0194 was to place a hold on all pending benefit applications for persons who were listed under Proclamation 10998 pending a comprehensive review, regardless of entry date.[x] This memo immediately placed an adjudicative hold on all pending and any future USCIS benefit applications filed by or on behalf of individuals connected to the countries listed under Proclamation 10998.[xi]

PM-602-0194 makes clear that that the pause applies to the adjudication of all benefit applications such as: I-129, Form I-140, Form I-539, and Form I-765.[xii] Under this policy announcement, immigration benefits applications by nationals from counties and entities currently subject to travel restrictions continue to be accepted and processed.[xiii] However, final adjudication may not be made until USCIS operationalizes procedures for additional screening or otherwise decides to remove the hold.[xiv]

With these adjudication holds, affected individuals face longer processing times, potential evidence requests, and interviews.[xv] Individuals also face delays in employment authorizations, extensions, changes of status, and the ability to secure advance parole.[xvi] There is potential for benefits that were approved on or after January 20, 2021 to be reopened for scrutiny and as a result, USCIS may request additional documentation, relocation of biometrics, and interviews.[xvii] Currently, there seems to be no timeline for when the adjudicative holds will be lifted.[xviii]

The Judicial Landscape

Among the federal courts there seems to be a trend in disagreeing with the USCIS policy pausing applications from all immigrants from the thirty-nine countries that have been either suspended or limited from entering the United States.[xix] In Saghafi v. Edlow, a Maryland case decided in April, the court was asked to enjoin the USCIS from applying the adjudicatory hold on the Plaintiff’s Form I-485 application.[xx] In Saghafi, the court held that the status quo consisted of the usual, though sometimes prolonged, processing and adjudications of Form I-485 within a reasonable time and without an adjudicatory hold in place.[xxi]

Therefore, the court, in restoring the status quo, enjoined USCIS from applying the adjudicatory hold to Plaintiff’s application and compelled USCIS to resume adjudication of these forms.[xxii] Ultimately, the court in Edlow found that USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate Form 1-485.[xxiii]

Similarly, in Doe v. Trump, a Massachusetts case decided in April, the court was asked to issue a preliminary injunction requiring the federal government to lift the adjudicative hold to Plaintiff’s benefit applications.[xxiv] In Doe, the court found that when Congress directed that USCIS “shall” make a decision on such applications, it imposed a non-discretionary duty to perform.[xxv] The court went on to say that the adjudicative hold policy, which indefinitely halts USCIS’s adjudication of such applications, is contrary to Congress’s command.[xxvi]

Therefore, the court, in analyzing the merits of the case, found that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim and that the adjudicative hold policy is not in accordance with the law.[xxvii] Ultimately, the court enjoined the federal government from enforcing the adjudicative hold policy and were compelled it to lift the adjudicative hold policy for the plaintiffs involved.[xxviii]

Practical Implications

In light of the adjudicative hold policy established through USCIS’s Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194, practitioners should recognize that the current legal landscape presents both significant procedural obstacles and emerging litigation opportunities for affected foreign nationals. While USCIS continues to accept and process applications submitted by nationals from countries listed under Presidential Proclamation 10998, the agency’s refusal to issue final adjudications has created substantial uncertainty for applicants seeking immigration benefits, employment authorization, extensions of status, and adjustment of status relief.

For practicing attorneys, the recent federal district court decisions in Saghafi and Doe provide an important framework for challenging these adjudicative holds. Both courts emphasized that Congress imposed a non-discretionary duty on USCIS to adjudicate immigration benefit applications when statutory language directs that the agency “shall” make a decision.

The reasoning in these cases also suggests that courts may be increasingly receptive to arguments that blanket adjudicative holds exceed USCIS’s lawful authority when those holds effectively suspend adjudications indefinitely rather than regulate the manner in which adjudications occur. Practitioners should therefore monitor developing federal litigation closely, particularly as additional district courts address whether the agency’s implementation of PM-602-0194 conflicts with congressional mandates governing immigration adjudications.

For individuals affected by these policies, applicants should expect increased scrutiny, additional requests for evidence, biometrics rescheduling, and possible interview or re-interview requirements. Maintaining complete documentation, responding timely to agency requests, and ensuring continued lawful status where possible will remain critical while adjudicative holds are in place.

Ultimately, although Presidential Proclamations 10949 and 10998 significantly expanded restrictions on entry and immigration processing for nationals of designated countries, the federal courts have begun signaling limits on USCIS’s ability to indefinitely suspend adjudications through internal policy memoranda. Accordingly, the developing judicial response may become one of the most significant mechanisms through which affected applicants and practitioners challenge prolonged immigration delays arising from the adjudicative hold policy.

Conclusion

In enacting Presidential Proclamations 10949 and 10998, the federal government significantly expanded restrictions on the entry and immigration processing of nationals from designated countries in the name of national security and public safety. Through USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194, these restrictions extended beyond admission into the United States and into the adjudication of immigration benefit requests, resulting in indefinite delays for thousands of applicants seeking lawful immigration benefits.

However, recent federal district court decisions in Saghafi and Doe demonstrate growing judicial skepticism toward USCIS’s adjudicative hold policy. As litigation surrounding PM-602-0194 continues to develop, the judiciary may play a critical role in defining the limits of executive and administrative authority in immigration adjudications and in determining whether indefinite adjudicative holds are consistent with congressional mandates governing immigration benefits.