Federal court orders USCIS to keep processing green card cases placed on an indefinite hold, what we know, and what it means for immigrants
Many immigrants can handle delays. What is much harder is uncertainty with no end date. In late April 2026, a Maryland federal court issued a ruling that speaks directly to that problem.
A group of 83 immigrants sued USCIS after their permanent residency applications were placed on an indefinite adjudication hold. The court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the agency to continue processing those applications rather than leaving them paused indefinitely.
This post explains what the ruling says in practical terms, what policy background led to the hold, and what this moment may mean for immigrants and families whose cases are stalled.
What was the hold, and why did it happen
USCIS issued policy memoranda in December 2025 and January 2026 that instructed adjudicators to place certain benefit requests on hold for additional screening connected to country-based risk lists and travel-related proclamations.
USCIS later published an update describing strengthened screening and vetting, and referenced that these memoranda placed some applications on hold while the agency reviewed procedures.
The key issue in the lawsuit was not whether USCIS can review cases more carefully. The issue was whether USCIS can pause adjudication indefinitely with no clear endpoint.
What the judge ordered and what the judge did not order
According to public reporting, Judge George L. Russell III concluded that USCIS cannot simply stop adjudicating applications altogether and leave people in long-term limbo.
At the same time, the decision does not force USCIS to approve anyone’s application. It also does not eliminate extra screening. The court’s focus is on the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time rather than freezing cases indefinitely.
Why courts are paying attention to these holds
In the Saghafi case, the plaintiffs argued that the hold caused real-world harm such as employment instability, travel restrictions, and inability to make long-term plans. Those themes are consistent with other recent litigation challenging similar pauses, including a Massachusetts case involving an employment authorization delay.
The larger takeaway is that courts are increasingly asked to draw a line between reasonable government review and an indefinite pause that functions like a denial without the paperwork.
What this means for immigrants
This ruling is not automatically nationwide
A preliminary injunction typically applies to the plaintiffs in that specific lawsuit. People in similar situations may not automatically benefit unless they are covered by the order or a broader class action result.It signals that indefinite limbo is legally vulnerable
Even if USCIS can add screening steps, courts may be skeptical of policies that pause adjudication without a defined condition or timeline.Documentation and case posture matter more than ever
If your case is pending, keep every receipt, notice, request for evidence, and online status update organized. If your work authorization or travel options depend on your pending filing, those facts may matter when discussing strategy.If your case is on hold, there may be options
Options can include congressional help, ombudsman inquiries, strategic re-filing in some contexts, or litigation in federal court, depending on facts. What is right depends on your status, your filing type, your stage, and the reason for the delay.
Practical steps if you suspect your application is affected by a hold
Confirm what type of benefit you filed and where it is in the pipeline
Keep your work authorization and identity documents current, where possible
Avoid relying on rumors and focus on official notices and attorney guidance
Get a case review before taking action that could trigger new delays
How AG Law Firm can help
AG Law Firm helps clients understand what is causing their delay, what tools exist to push a case forward, and whether federal court options are appropriate. Not every delay supports litigation, but when a policy creates an indefinite hold with no meaningful path to a decision, a legal strategy review can be essential.