Jim Hacking Lawsuit Challenging the USCIS Adjudication Freeze

Immigration attorney Jim Hacking’s lawsuit challenging the USCIS adjudication freeze is a 197-plaintiff case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Akmurat O. Doe v. Trump (No. 1:25-cv-13946-JEK), that argues the Trump administration cannot lawfully stop deciding immigration benefit applications across the board for people from 39 designated countries. On April 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick ruled the freeze was “likely unlawful” and granted a preliminary injunction for 22 plaintiffs who had shown irreparable harm.¹

What the Freeze Does

The policies Hacking is suing over came in two USCIS memos. On December 2, 2025, Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192 placed an immediate hold on all pending asylum applications and on benefit requests for people from countries designated “high-risk” under Presidential Proclamation 10949.² Effective January 1, 2026, PM-602-0194 extended the hold to nationals of all 39 countries covered by the expanded travel ban in Presidential Proclamation 10998, along with holders of Palestinian Authority travel documents.³

The 39 countries span Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and parts of Asia, including Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen, among others.⁴ Beyond pausing new decisions, the January memo mandated a “comprehensive re-review” of previously approved benefits for people from those countries who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021, putting existing status at risk of revocation.³ Separate USCIS guidance told officers to treat nationality from one of the 39 countries as a “significant negative factor” when deciding discretionary benefits.⁵

The administration cited national security following the November 2025 shooting of two National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C., by an Afghan national.⁶

What Hacking’s Lawsuit Claims

The 197 plaintiffs are people lawfully present in the United States who were eligible for immigration benefits USCIS then stopped processing. The complaint argues USCIS lacks statutory authority to indefinitely stop deciding cases across the board, and that the agency has replaced individualized, case-by-case review with nationality-based rules. It alleges USCIS suspended mandatory adjudication duties without going through required rulemaking and without any articulated standards for its “security posture” system.⁷ The suit asks the court to restore lawful adjudication and require individualized review.

The Department of Homeland Security called the litigation a “baseless lawsuit that attempts to usurp the President’s lawful authority” and defended the pause as necessary for a “comprehensive examination” of pending benefit requests.⁸

The April 2026 Preliminary Injunction

Judge Kobick’s April 30 ruling was described as the first in the country to reach the merits of the “significant negative factor” policy.⁹ For the 22 plaintiffs who filed declarations showing irreparable harm, the court ordered the government to immediately lift the adjudicative hold on their pending benefit applications and to stop applying the “significant negative factor” policy to their adjustment-of-status and work authorization cases.¹⁰

The judge directed the parties to confer about extending relief to additional plaintiffs who could demonstrate similar harm, with a status report due May 7, 2026.¹⁰ Hacking’s firm described the ruling as pulling roughly 200 people out of “immigration limbo.”⁹

A Second Multi-Plaintiff Case

After the April ruling, Hacking’s firm began building a second multi-plaintiff lawsuit targeting the same USCIS freeze. Submissions closed on May 13, 2026, and the firm’s legal team began reviewing and contacting qualifying applicants on a rolling basis.¹

How This Fits With the Nationwide Dorcas Ruling

Hacking’s case is not the only challenge to the freeze, and the broader ruling that has done the most to unwind it came from a different court. On March 5, 2026, a coalition of immigrant service organizations and labor unions represented by Democracy Forward filed Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS (No. 26-cv-132) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, raising the same core Administrative Procedure Act, Immigration and Nationality Act, and constitutional claims but on behalf of organizations rather than individuals.⁵

On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued a 135-page ruling that vacated all four of the challenged policies nationwide: the global asylum hold, the benefits hold for the 39 countries, the comprehensive re-review mandate, and the “significant negative factor” guidance.⁶ Judge McConnell found USCIS lacked statutory authority to categorically stop adjudications Congress had required it to make, and that the policies were arbitrary and capricious because the agency offered no reasoned explanation.¹¹ He wrote that the administration’s national security justifications were “pretextual concerns” used to “mask anti-immigrant sentiments.” The court vacated the policies but declined to issue a permanent injunction, finding vacatur sufficient.¹²

The government appealed to the First Circuit on June 12, 2026, one week after the ruling, under docket number 26-1703.¹³

One boundary is worth noting for anyone tracking this fight: the Dorcas ruling addressed the USCIS adjudication policies, not the State Department’s separate January 2026 pause on immigrant visa issuances for nationals of 75 countries, which remains the subject of its own case, Clinic v. Rubio.¹² A separate set of multi-plaintiff cases, Nezameslami and Ahmadi, brought by IMMpact Litigation, is also moving on parallel tracks with its own plaintiffs and its own motion for preliminary injunction.¹⁴

Where Things Stand

The Dorcas vacatur applies nationwide, and USCIS has said it will comply with the order and stop enforcing the challenged policies while the appeal proceeds. The agency has not yet issued public guidance on how or when it will work through the backlog of cases held during the roughly six-month pause.¹⁵¹⁶ The First Circuit could stay the ruling and reinstate some or all of the policies while the appeal is decided.

Hacking’s Massachusetts case produced individualized relief for his named plaintiffs before the broader Dorcas ruling landed. His firm continues to accept clients for the second multi-plaintiff case and for individual mandamus and delay-related lawsuits.¹

1
Hacking Law Practice. USCIS Hold on 39 Countries – Join the 2nd Federal Lawsuit
2
USCIS. PM-602-0192 – Pending Applications High Risk Countries
3
USCIS. PM-602-0194 – Pending Applications Additional High Risk Countries
4
NAFSA. Proclamation December 16, 2025 Travel Ban Effective January 1, 2026
5
Democracy Forward. Broad Coalition Files Lawsuit to Block Trump-Vance Administration Policies Targeting Immigrants Based on Country of Origin
6
Courthouse News Service. Judge Blocks Trumps Sweeping Freeze on Immigration Benefits for 39 Countries
7
Hacking Law Practice. New Lawsuit Challenges USCIS Immigration Pause
8
NBC Boston. Immigration Policy Lawsuit Trump Administration
9
Aparna Vashisht-Rota (Substack). A Federal Court Just Stopped USCIS
10
PACER Monitor. Doe et al v. Trump et al
11
USCIS Pause Tracker. USCIS Pause Tracker
12
Cyrus Mehta Blog. Dorcas v. USCIS: Federal Court Reaffirms That USCIS Must Adjudicate, Not Stonewall, Immigration Benefits
13
CourtListener. Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
14
IMMpact Litigation. 39 Country Adjudication Pause Litigation Plaintiff Onboarding
15
Wolfsdorf Immigration. Dorcas on Appeal: District Court Pauses Its Own Ruling as First Circuit Takes Up the Case
16
EY Tax News. US DHS Announces Pause on Immigrant Visa Processing for 75 Countries