The government had instituted an indefinite freeze on asylum petitions, as well as on applications for green cards, work permits, and citizenship for lawful immigrants from certain countries.
A federal judge on Friday invalidated one of the Trump administration’s moves aimed at limiting lawful immigration, ruling that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) violated federal law when it enacted an open-ended pause on processing asylum and green-card filings from individuals from specific nations.
“The rule of law must apply to everyone equally, and, as this case shows, USCIS has neither followed the law nor acted in the proper manner,” wrote Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. “Indeed, the agency has violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering, as well as the administrative laws that govern the agency’s actions.” Those actions, he added, were arbitrary and capricious.
The pause was put in place last year after Afghan migrant Rahmanullah Lakanwal allegedly shot two National Guard servicemembers, Andrew Wolfe and Sarah Beckstrom, the latter of whom died. Lakanwal came to the United States in 2021 in connection with the support he provided to CIA-affiliated units in Afghanistan. His case was part of Operation Allies Welcome, an initiative that offered Afghans refuge in exchange for their help during U.S. military operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Lakanwal underwent multiple rounds of screening under the Biden administration and was ultimately granted asylum during the Trump administration.
The restrictions initially encompassed a global halt on USCIS processing of asylum applications; that stance was later narrowed to apply only to the 39 countries on President Donald Trump’s travel ban list, which are mainly located in Africa and Asia. The agency also stopped processing other applications from those places, meaning individuals already in the U.S. legally could no longer advance toward obtaining green cards, work permits, or citizenship, leaving their lives stuck in limbo.
Although the Trump administration had focused primarily on illegal immigration, the move appeared to be part of a broader strategy intended to deter even legal pathways into the United States. The administration attempted to apply expedited removal to humanitarian parolees—who entered the country legally—from such countries as Cuba and Venezuela, speeding up their deportations. It also imposed a $100,000 supplemental fee for certain H-1B visa applications. Most recently, the government announced it would compel some people seeking green cards to apply from abroad, forcing them to potentially leave their families and possibly lose their jobs while enduring lengthy waits. Those plans were subsequently scaled back amid widespread outcry.
What is the practical effect of the restrictions placed on the “travel ban” countries? “Plaintiffs and their members have observed the legal processes that Congress enacted by statute and USCIS promulgated by regulation so that they may one day obtain immigration benefits,” McConnell notes. “They have, for example, filed the appropriate paperwork, paid the required filing fees, submitted to the requested biometrics collections, and attended the necessary in-person interviews. Even so, Plaintiffs and their members are stuck waiting, for months on end, for benefit requests that USCIS refuses to adjudicate.”
McConnell concedes that the Court’s role is not to pass judgment on the wisdom of the Government’s policy choices but rather to determine whether those choices are lawful. “Having undertaken that inquiry,” he writes, “the Court concludes that they do not and therefore must be set aside.”
