U.S. Immigration Brief

VERIFIED NEWS · USCIS LITIGATION

USCIS says federal court enjoined two benefit-hold policies

The agency says it will comply with an August 24 preliminary injunction while leaving open the possibility of further judicial review.

Exterior of the Phillip Burton Federal Building and United States Courthouse in San Francisco

Official Northern District of California photograph. The image shows the San Francisco courthouse division and is illustrative of the federal court involved. It does not depict the hearing, plaintiffs, applicants, USCIS adjudications, or an immigration proceeding. Original federal court page ↗

By U.S. Immigration Brief Editorial DeskLast verified August 29, 2026

What USCIS reported

USCIS said the court enjoined Policy Memoranda PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 in Red Eagle Law, L.C., et al. v. Joseph B. Edlow. According to the agency, the order directs USCIS to adjudicate covered applications through its normal process while the injunction remains operative.

Who the certified class covers

The USCIS alert describes a class of people who are citizens or natives of one or more of the 39 countries identified in Presidential Proclamations 10949 or 10998, or the Palestinian Authority, and who either have a pending Form I-589 asylum application or another pending USCIS benefit application subject to one of the two challenged memoranda that lacked a final decision when the class was certified.

What the order does not mean

The order does not approve every covered application, erase ordinary eligibility and security review, set an individual decision date, or resolve the entire lawsuit. It is judicial action affecting agency policy—not a final rule issued through the Federal Register. USCIS expressly says it disagrees with the order but will follow it pending possible further judicial review.

Earlier litigation is separate

USCIS had previously announced a June 2026 order from a different federal court concerning related hold policies. The August 24 order and class certification arose in a separate Northern District of California case. This article reports the newer agency announcement and does not treat separate district-court proceedings as one nationwide appellate ruling.

Primary federal sources

Corrections: No corrections have been made. Material litigation developments will be labeled and verified against a new federal record.