Californian judge Susan van Keulen has directed USCIS to adjudicate pending work authorisations of one Sudanese and 30 Iranian students and scholars, left in “immigration limbo” after the government stopped processing benefits for nationals from “high risk” countries.
The pause impacts US visa-holders from the 40 countries and territories covered by Trump’s travel ban, and came into force through two policy memos in December 2025 and January 2026.
A spokesperson from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said the legal challenge was “another baseless lawsuit that attempts to usurp the President’s lawful authority to determine which foreign nationals may enter, remain and enjoy certain privileges in this country”.
The administration has argued that its authority to restrict the entry of foreign nationals also applies to the adjudication of benefits for those already in the US.
In implementing the pause, USCIS said it was halting asylum applications and all pending benefit requests while it conducted “comprehensive review” of the process.
The spokesperson reiterated that the agency was working to ensure the “high-risk” applications were “vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible”.
“The safety of the American people always comes first,” they told The PIE News.
But four months later, processing has not resumed and USCIS has provided no guidance on the matter, leaving scores of visa holders and international graduates seeking OPT authorisation in limbo, at risk of violating their visa status if they are not able to work or study.
“The practical impact is significant as these students are often unable to begin employment as expected, which creates uncertainty for both the graduates and their prospective employers,” Fragomen immigration partner Aaron Blumberg told The PIE.
While Blumberg said most students appeared to be waiting in the hope their application is moved forward, others have chosen to forgo OPT and enrol in new academic programs, with a “smaller number” deciding to leave the US altogether.
Over three dozen lawsuits have challenged the policy, arguing that the indefinite processing hold not only violates the Administrative Procedure Act but discriminates on the basis of nationality.
They say that while the government has the discretion to decide the outcome of an application, it does not have authority to indefinitely withhold adjudication.
This is another baseless lawsuit that attempts to usurp the President’s lawful authority
DHS
In the case heard by van Keulen earlier this month, she found the Department of Homeland Security was “unable to offer any factual support that there will be an end to the hold”.
And while both policy memorandums set out a 90-day window for USCIS to provide operational guidance, the agency had failed to act within the period it set out for itself, ruled the judge.
Though litigation is in its early stages, Fragomen immigration partner Daniel Pierce said judges had initially been “sympathetic” to plaintiffs’ claims that the pause is unlawful in their cases.
Keulen’s preliminary injunction is a positive signal for those that dispute the government’s claims that authority to restrict the entry of foreign nationals also applies to the adjudication of benefits for those already in the US.
However, Pierce highlighted “important limitations” in the cases so far, with courts limiting relief to only the parties that sued, and, in some cases, lifting the pause without ordering immediate action on the pending adjudication.
“We may see broader relief eventually, but for now only people who brought suit are benefitting,” he said, adding that if the government appeals, higher courts may be more willing to give the administration leeway to change its vetting policies.
In the meantime, hundreds of recent graduates from travel ban countries have reported being unable to work, in some cases losing income, health insurance and housing.
As the school year nears its end, more graduating students are expected to be caught in the limbo, with applicants required to submit OPT applications within 60 days of graduation.
Though OPT is not a work authorisation as participants remain on their F-1 visa, USCIS maintained the program was subject to the same country-specific enforcements for “high-risk nations”, with 11 of the plaintiffs in the California case seeking OPT authorisation.
