A day after a federal judge struck down Trump administration policies that had frozen applications for many immigrants seeking to stay in the country, there was renewed hope that a six-month logjam might be easing.
There are more than a million backlogged applications for citizenship, green cards, work permits and asylum. When those applications would move forward, however, was uncertain.
In a strongly worded opinion on Friday, the judge, John J. McConnell Jr., wrote that the policies enacted by the Trump administration had effectively made it challenging for many immigrants to stay in the United States.
The policies, which were enacted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which administers the legal immigration system and processes paperwork for immigrants already in the country, put a hold on asylum applications. The agency also paused decisions on applications filed by immigrants from 39 countries under a travel ban, many of them in Africa and the Middle East.
“When U.S.C.I.S. first enacted the policies at the center of this litigation, the agency did not simply place a hold on adjudications,” Judge McConnell wrote. “More fundamentally, the challenged policies placed the lives of countless individuals on hold — solely by virtue of their countries of birth. Over six months later, many of those individuals remain without work, without legal status, and without any meaningful ability to plan for their futures.”
The ruling was a victory for labor groups that had filed a lawsuit in March against the federal government over the policies. Among those groups was American Gateways, a nonprofit that provides legal services for immigrants.
Edna Yang, a co-executive director of American Gateways, said in a statement that the ruling “reinforces the integrity of our nation’s immigration system.”
“It allows people who have spent decades waiting for the legal system to work as promised to have certainty and a path forward for hard-fought permanent status and family reunification,” she said. “It is important that no administration excludes people based solely on their country of origin.”
Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said that this decision could allow those with immigration cases to move their applications forward.
But the relief may be short-lived. While it was unclear immediately after the ruling how the Trump administration planned to respond, it was expected that the judge’s order would be appealed.
The White House referred questions about the decision to the U.S.C.I.S.
James Percival, the general counsel for the Homeland Security Department, the parent agency of U.S.C.I.S., said in an emailed statement on Saturday that the ruling was “sabotage dressed in legal clothing.”
Mr. Chishti said the statement by Mr. Percival signaled the Trump administration would push back on the judge’s ruling.
“It’s definitely not the end of this,” Mr. Chishti said, “and this case is definitely headed to the Supreme Court.”
It was unclear how soon Citizenship and Immigration Services would restart processing applications that had been affected.
Kevin Love Hubbard, a lawyer with the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island, said that barring an appeal, U.S.C.I.S. could no longer rely on the policies enacted by the federal government to refuse processing cases.
“I think the decision is obviously new and complex, and it will take some time to filter down through the administrative system to individual people’s applications,” Mr. Hubbard said. “The hope and expectation is that, unless there is a different decision on appeal, that U.S.C.I.S. will start processing these applications for people who were illegally put in indefinite limbo.”
The policies that prompted the lawsuit were announced in November after officials said an Afghan national had shot two National Guard members in Washington.
Mr. Chishti said that if the case was further litigated, one key question would be whether blanket policies that affect people from certain countries could be put in place in the interest of national security.
“National security concerns are valid — no one can dispute that,” he said. “But it doesn’t merit a blanket ban on all applicants from those countries.”
The policies that were overturned by the court had blocked people from the 39 travel ban countries from receiving final decisions on completed asylum applications, and from receiving green cards through the adjustment of status process, which allows immigrants already in the country to apply for a green card without returning to their native land. It also blocked them from receiving status through employment authorization documents or becoming naturalized citizens.
In 2024, about 240,000 people from those 39 countries received green cards through the adjustment of status process, and about 840,000 became naturalized citizens. In fiscal year 2023, about 22,000 were granted asylum. The countries with the most people to receive green cards or to be naturalized were Cuba, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Haiti.
Jorge Loweree, the managing director of programs at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy organization for immigrants, said that even before the policies had been enacted by the federal government, asylum cases were being processed slowly.
“It’s fair to anticipate that the administration isn’t going to do something like prioritize asylum adjudications because of this decision,” Mr. Loweree said. “But it should certainly open the door to having many more cases that move than have in the last six months.”
By putting applications on hold, Mr. Hubbard said, the federal government was creating challenges for immigrants who had been trying to follow the proper legal process toward green cards or U.S. citizenship.
“This is about people who tried to follow the process and still are being stymied,” Mr. Hubbard said.
Albert Sun contributed reporting.
Jesus Jiménez is a Times reporter covering North Texas. He is based in Dallas.
The post An Uncertain Win for Immigrants Seeking to Stay in U.S. appeared first on New York Times.
