Understanding USCIS’s Adjudicatory Hold: What It Is, Who It Affects, and What Practitioners Need to Know
Immigration applicants are navigating what may be the broadest administrative pause on immigration benefit adjudications in recent history.
Since January 2026, USCIS has directed officers to place an “adjudicatory hold” on many pending immigration cases involving nationals of designated countries — preventing final approval or denial even where review is otherwise complete.
This post explains what we know so far: what the hold is, what triggered it, which countries are affected, and what practitioners should expect going forward.
Key Takeaways
• USCIS has placed an adjudicatory hold on many immigration benefit requests for nationals of 39 countries.
• Officers may review cases but cannot issue approvals or denials while the hold is in place.
• The hold stems from Executive Order 14161, Proclamation 10949, and Proclamation 10998, implemented through USCIS policy memoranda PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194.
• A limited national interest exemption exists but currently has no published application process.
• Multiple federal lawsuits are actively challenging the policy.
Background: The Legal Framework
The adjudicatory hold flows from a chain of executive action beginning on Inauguration Day:
• Executive Order 14161 (January 20, 2025), Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, directed a comprehensive review of visa screening and vetting processes and set the national security rationale for what followed. Link to EO 14161
• Presidential Proclamation 10949 (June 4, 2025), Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, invoked INA § 212(f) to impose full and partial entry suspensions on nationals of 19 designated “high-risk” countries. Link to PP 10949
• Presidential Proclamation 10998 (December 16, 2025, effective January 1, 2026), Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States, expanded the restricted list from 19 to 39 countries, plus individuals holding Palestinian Authority–issued travel documents. Link to PP 10998
What Is the Adjudicatory Hold?
Unlike typical processing delays, this hold is not a backlog issue. Officers may review a case fully but are directed not to issue a final decision until additional national-security review processes are completed.The adjudicatory hold is a USCIS-directed pause on final adjudication of pending immigration benefit requests for nationals of the designated countries. Importantly, cases can still be filed and can continue to be processed — the hold stops short of a final decision (approval, denial, or dismissal).
The hold was implemented through two policy memoranda:
• PM-602-0192 (December 2, 2025): Applied the hold to nationals of the original 19 PP 10949 countries. It also directed a re-review of benefit requests approved on or after January 20, 2021, for nationals who entered the U.S. on or after that date. Link to PM-602-0192
• PM-602-0194 (January 1, 2026): Expanded the hold to all 39 countries listed in PP 10998 (plus PA travel document holders), and extended the re-review to benefit requests approved on or after January 20, 2021 — a broader scope than PM-602-0192. Link to PM-602-0194
The hold applies regardless of when the individual entered the United States and regardless of whether the petition is employment-based, family-based, or humanitarian in nature. USCIS has clarified that the list of affected benefit types is non-exhaustive and includes I-129s, I-140s, adjustment of status, naturalization, travel documents, and more.
What Is Exempt?
PM-602-0194 provides limited exceptions, including:
• Form I-90 (Green Card replacements)
• Form N-600 (Certificate of Citizenship, except for Yemen and Somalia nationals)
• Initial asylum-based EADs (Form I-765, (c)(8) category) — subject to the Asylumworks court order requiring 30-day processing
• Certain law enforcement–related work authorization categories ((c)(11) and (c)(14))
• Benefit requests serving a demonstrated U.S. national interest (see section below for further analysis)
The 39 Countries Subject to the Adjudicatory Hold
The hold currently applies to nationals (by citizenship OR country of birth) of all countries listed in PP 10998, as well as holders of Palestinian Authority travel documents.
Full Entry Suspension — Immigrant and Nonimmigrant (19 Countries)
Afghanistan · Burma (Myanmar) · Burkina Faso · Chad · Republic of the Congo · Equatorial Guinea · Eritrea · Haiti · Iran · Laos · Libya · Mali · Niger · Sierra Leone · Somalia · South Sudan · Sudan · Syria · Yemen
Partial Entry Suspension — Immigrants + B, F, M, and J Nonimmigrants (20 Countries)
Angola · Antigua and Barbuda · Benin · Burundi · Côte d’Ivoire · Cuba · Dominica · Gabon · The Gambia · Malawi · Mauritania · Nigeria · Senegal · Tanzania · Togo · Tonga · Venezuela · Zambia · Zimbabwe
Note: Turkmenistan is subject to suspended immigrant entry only; nonimmigrant entry restrictions were lifted under PP 10998. Additionally, the hold applies to individuals who obtained Citizenship by Investment (CBI) from a second, non-designated country — a deliberate measure to close a potential workaround.
What Practitioners Should Expect
• Significant processing delays for all benefit types — potentially indefinite, as the hold has no stated end date and remains in place until a superseding USCIS directive is issued.
• Mandatory re-review of already-approved cases, which may include re-interviews and additional security vetting.
• Heightened scrutiny at the individual adjudication level even outside the hold’s formal scope, given simultaneously issued guidance directing officers to treat “relevant country-specific facts” as significant negative discretionary factors.
• Employers should reassess timelines for dependent H-1B extensions, I-140 filings, and adjustment of status applications for affected nationals.
Legal Uncertainty — Active Litigation
This policy is not settled law, and it is already facing significant judicial resistance. Multiple federal lawsuits have been filed challenging PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 on constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act grounds, arguing that extending the travel ban proclamations to domestic benefit adjudications exceeds USCIS's authority.
The major cases include Saghafi et al. v. Edlow, No. 8:26-cv-00100 (D. Md.) — brought by 83 plaintiffs including cancer doctors and researchers with approved National Interest Waivers — and Doe v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-13946 (D. Mass.), among others. (Axios coverage of the litigation)
Critically, two federal judges have already granted preliminary injunctions blocking the hold as applied to specific plaintiffs. On February 20, 2026, a Northern District of California judge found the hold likely violates the APA and ordered adjudication of two plaintiffs' applications within 30 days. On February 27, 2026, a Massachusetts judge issued a similar order on an employment authorization application. Additional cases remain pending nationwide, with a hearing in Behdin v. Edlow (N.D. Cal.) held on March 3, 2026, and a ruling still awaited.
Practitioners should monitor these developments closely. The preliminary injunction findings — that the hold likely exceeds statutory authority — are significant signals, and a broader ruling could materially alter the hold's scope or validity.
The National Interest Exemption: What the Memo Says — and What USCIS Has (Not) Told Us
PM-602-0194 carves out an exception to the adjudicatory hold for benefit requests where the applicant’s presence in the United States would serve a U.S. national interest. On paper, this sounds meaningful. In practice, it has generated more questions than answers — and USCIS has provided almost no operational clarity since the memo was issued.
What the Memo Actually Says
The memo states that the hold does not apply to benefit requests filed by noncitizens whose entry or continued presence would serve a U.S. national interest. This is a discretionary, case-by-case determination that requires approval from the headquarters of the adjudicative directorate or program office — not the local field office. All exemption requests must be coordinated and tracked by the USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy (OP&S).
Footnote 16 of PM-602-0194 provides the only concrete guidance on what might qualify, listing examples including: a scientist or medical researcher working on a critical public health project; an engineer with specialized skills needed for a key infrastructure initiative; or someone with unique expertise supporting U.S. national security or economic interests.
That footnote is essentially the entirety of what we have been given.
The Guidance Problem
PM-602-0194 expressly directed OP&S to issue operational guidance within seven days of the memo’s issuance — meaning by January 8, 2026. As of the date of this post, that guidance has not been publicly issued. There is no published process for submitting an exemption request, no form, no designated inbox, no standard of review, and no guidance on how adjudicators are supposed to evaluate or route these requests. USCIS has not explained how applicants or practitioners are expected to seek this exemption, or whether requests initiated by counsel will even be received and processed.
This is not a minor administrative gap. For affected clients, the national interest exemption may be the only available path to adjudication while the hold remains in place — and right now, that path has no published on-ramp.
Important Distinctions
The national interest exemption under PM-602-0194 is not the same as a National Interest Waiver (NIW) under the EB-2 visa category. Having a prior approved NIW does not automatically qualify an applicant for the hold exemption, though it may be relevant evidence supporting the argument. The exemption is a separate, standalone discretionary determination — and based on the memo’s language, a more demanding one, requiring headquarters-level sign-off.
What We Are Doing for Affected Clients
In the absence of formal guidance, our approach is to build the strongest possible record now, so that when — and if — a submission mechanism is established, clients are positioned to move quickly. This means documenting the national interest basis thoroughly: employer letters, research outputs, project descriptions, evidence of unique expertise, and any institutional or government-level acknowledgment of the applicant’s contributions. For clients whose work touches on critical infrastructure, public health, or national security, we are framing those arguments in the language of the footnote’s own examples.
We are also monitoring litigation developments closely. The active class-action challenge to PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 may produce court-ordered guidance or operational constraints that alter the exemption’s scope or the process for requesting it.
Additional Practice Notes
• Check litigation status: Verify whether any injunctive relief has issued since the class action was filed, as that would materially change the analysis.
• Partial vs. full ban distinction: Some practitioners have argued the hold should not apply equally to partial-ban nationals (e.g., for H-1B categories not suspended by the proclamation). That point remains unsettled.
• Palestinian Authority travel documents: The hold covers individuals who carry PA-issued documents, not necessarily those who identify as Palestinian by nationality — a meaningful legal distinction.
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is highly fact-specific; consult qualified immigration counsel for guidance on individual cases.