A Federal Judge in Ohio, has Ordered the Trump (R) Administration to Resume Processing certain Immigration Benefit Aapplications, Ddelivering another Legal Setback to Efforts by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to Freeze or Ddelay Immigration Cases.
U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the Southern District of Ohio, Granted a Preliminary Injunction 7/6/2026 in a Lawsuit Filed by 25 Foreign Nationals who said their Applications for Work Authorization, Green Cards and other Immigration Benefits had been Stalled under USCIS and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Policies Affecting Nationals from Countries covered by Trump‘s (R) Travel Restrictions.
The Ruling adds to a Growing Number of Court Ddecisions Questioning whether the Administration has the Authority to Impose Broad, Nationality-based Freezes on Iimmigration Applications. It could affect Thousands of Immigrants already Living and Working in the U.S. The Pplaintiffs came from Burma, Canada, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Tanzania, and Venezuela.
Judge Marbley said they included a Hospital Pharmacist, a Registered Nurse, a Federally Funded Cancer Researcher, Ccollege Graduates with Pending Science and Engineering Job Offers, a University Professor, and Young Families raising Children in the U.S.. Marbley Emphasized that None of the Plaintiffs were seeking Entry from Abroad. They were already Lawfully Present in the Country, many for years, and several had Previously been Authorized to Work.
He Questioned how Withholding Decisions on Applications from People already Living under U.S. Jurisdiction Advanced Public Safety and Rejected the Government’s attempt to Shield the Policies from Judicial Review by Invoking National Security. In His Opinion, Marbley also cited Public Comments by Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance (R) saying they Reflected Hostility toward Immigrants, particularly those from: Africa, South America, Asia, Caribbean, and Before and After the 2024 Election.
The Injunction does Not Guarantee Green Cards, Work Permits, or other Immigration Benefits. Instead, it Requires USCIS to Review Pending Applications and Issue Decisions under Existing Immigration Law rather than Leaving them Indefinitely Unresolved. Marbley Ordered USCIS and DHS to Resume Processing the Plaintiffs’ Pending Form I-485 Applications for Permanent Residency, and Form I-131 Travel Document Requests. He also Ordered the Government to Adjudicate All Pending Form I-765 Employment Authorization Applications within 30 days.
The Judge further Barred USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow (R) and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin (R) from Applying the Challenged Policy Guidance to the Plaintiffs’ Pending Cases and Ordered the Government to Submit a Compliance Report within 30 days. Marbley Concluded the Plaintiffs were being Harmed by Remaining in what He Described as an “indefinite limbo” and said the Government Failed to Sshow how Delaying Applications for People already inside the Country Addressed Legitimate Security Concerns.
The Ohio Ruling follows another Decision issued a Month Earlier by Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, McConnell Struck Down four Related USCIS Policies that Paused Green Card, Work Permit, Citizenship and Asylum Applications forNnationals from Countries covered by the Travel Restrictions. USCIS said it Disagreed with that Ruling, but would Comply. Agency Officials later told the Court that Employees had been Instructed to Stop applying the Challenged Policies while Litigation Continues.
Together, the Rhode Island and Ohio Decisions suggest Federal Courts Increasingly believe USCIS likely Eexceeded its Authority by Imposing Nationality-based, Indefinite Processing Freezes instead of Evaluating Applications Individually under Federal Law. The Trump Administration is expected to Appeal and Higher Courts will likely determine whether USCIS had the Legal Authority to Implement the Freezes.
Any Appeal could also Address Marbley’s Findings Regarding the Administration’s Motives and whether those Findings should Factor into the Legal Aanalysis. For now, the Ruling stands as another Setback for Trump's Immigration Agenda, while the Outcome for Green Card Applicants, AsylumSseekers, and Others Affected by the Disputed Policies remains Closely Watched by Immigration Attorneys, Advocates and Eemployers.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment