Months after the Trump administration issued a freeze on work permits and other benefits for people from nearly 40 travel ban countries, immigrants are being forced out of jobs, losing apartments, and going without health care.
They’re also increasingly taking US Citizenship and Immigration Services to court over a policy that’s put benefits on hold for applicants from Iran, Nigeria, and other nations deemed “high risk” by White House proclamations—even though they arrived before the ban was issued and, in many cases, have been in the country for years.
Roughly three dozen lawsuits in federal district courts across the country claim USCIS is unlawfully withholding decisions on work permits and violating immigration statute by discriminating against applicants on the basis of national origin. And plaintiffs are slowly collecting preliminary court wins, albeit for limited groups of immigrants.
The benefits freeze was cast as a temporary move while the government conducts a review of relevant policies. But attorneys say there’s no sign the agency is moving to drop the freeze.
“These people are already here,” said Curtis L. Morrison, an immigration attorney at Red Eagle Law who’s brought multiple suits challenging the policy. “How is national security impacted by keeping doctors and engineers from working?”
As the Trump administration pursues mass deportations and expands immigrant detention capacity, policies suspending legal benefits are disrupting the lives and threatening the status of foreign nationals who are in the US with legal authorization.
‘High-Risk’ Countries
President
Late last year, however, the agency responded to the shooting of two National Guard members by an Afghan asylum seeker by halting applications for a range of benefits. USCIS Director Joseph Edlow issued a memo pausing pending benefit requests for individuals from the first set of travel ban countries as well as all asylum claims; a second memo issued in January covered additions from another White House proclamation.
Although the agency has since lifted the asylum pause for some applicants, the benefits freeze remains in place for people from nations deemed “high risk” by the administration.
A USCIS spokesperson said policies of the Biden administration “allowed dangerous people, including national security threats” into the country. The agency has paused benefits until applicants from those countries “are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible,” they said.
But the government doesn’t have legal authority to suspend work permits or green cards based solely on country of origin, said attorney Jim Hacking of Hacking Immigration Law, who’s suing USCIS on behalf of physicians and other workers affected by the policy.
“We don’t believe because you’re from one of 39 countries that should be a significant adverse factor in adjudicating immigration benefits,” he said.
Limited Relief
With courts blocked from issuing nationwide injunctions, plaintiffs are joining “mass action” cases or bringing individual suits over delayed benefits.
The basis of those legal challenges is largely the same: They argue the benefits freeze violated the Administrative Procedure Act by imposing unreasonable delays and enacting a policy that was arbitrary and capricious, as well as unlawfully discriminating on the basis of national origin.
Those claims are finding traction in court, most recently in the Northern District of California where Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen this month granted a preliminary injunction to 31 Iranians and one Sudanese national, ordering USCIS to adjudicate their pending work permits.
Although government attorneys argued the agency has discretion over granting immigrant benefits, that doesn’t extend to withholding decisions on those benefits, she found. And while the original freeze included a 90-day window to issue operational guidance, the agency “has failed to explain when and by what criteria a decision will be made to lift the hold,” van Keulen wrote.
Other courts have ordered USCIS to act on claims of individuals or groups of plaintiffs, but van Keulen’s decision was significant because it found Congress had set an expectation that a reasonable processing time was no more than 180 days, said Morrison, who represents the plaintiffs.
“The judge has broken new ground here with that interpretation,” he said.
USCIS didn’t respond to a request for comment on the order or whether it plans to appeal.
Research Disruptions
In the wake of the sudden work permit freeze, hundreds of recent graduates from travel ban countries have been unable to work—a problem poised to get worse as more international students complete degrees this spring.
Amir, an Iranian national, joined a San Francisco-based biotech startup last year after completing a doctorate in bioengineering. His role at the Bay Area firm focused on using artificial intelligence to develop new proteins for cancer treatments, especially pediatric cancers like leukemia.
Rapid developments in those therapies could offer alternatives to patients whose cancers are normally resistant to chemotherapy, Amir said. He asked that his full name not be used out of concern that his benefit requests at USCIS could be affected.
“Improving these treatments would mean quality of life improvements for current patients and would advance immune therapies for all kinds of cancers,” he said.
But Amir’s employment authorization expired in December. His application for employment authorization through Optional Practical Training, which allows international STEM graduates to work up to three years in the US, was blocked by the freeze.
His employer is willing to bring him back on with employment authorization. But Amir, who fears persecution if he returns to his home country, isn’t sure how much longer he can remain in the US without an income. By next month, his savings will run out, he said.
“They could give me my work authorization so I don’t have to become homeless, and then continue their security screening,” he said. “This policy is clearly designed to push people out.”
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story: