- A federal judge halted the travel ban for Afghan asylum seeker relatives to allow family reunification.
- The State Department must issue travel documents to five specific beneficiaries within fifteen days.
- The court’s decision protects derivative asylees without fully overturning the administration’s broader thirty-nine-country travel policy.
U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga ordered the government on July 29, 2026, to stop using the Trump travel ban to keep an asylum seeker’s approved relatives from joining family members in the United States. The order requires travel documents for five beneficiaries within 15 days.
Trenga also directed officials to reconsider two other applications without applying the travel-ban proclamations. He issued the order in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Free toolCSPA Age-Out Calculator Online
The case concerns Afghan asylees and relatives seeking entry through a family reunification process tied to approved asylum cases. It does not invalidate the travel restrictions themselves.
The court’s order addresses the State Department’s handling of those applications. Its oversight will continue until the plaintiffs arrive in the United States.
The litigation is identified as A.A. v. State and implements a broader decision issued in May 2026. The immediate relief covers seven applications.
The International Refugee Assistance Project represents the plaintiffs with Williams & Connolly LLP and Keler & Kershow PLLC. Lupe Aguirre, IRAP’s Deputy Director of U.S. Litigation, said the government could not use the restrictions to abandon people with approved asylum status.
“Today the court affirmed that the State Department cannot use the travel ban to abandon this population, or any asylees seeking family reunification. The State Department must allow people with approved asylee status to reunite.”
Five beneficiaries face a 15-day document deadline
The ruling divides the immediate remedy into two groups. Five beneficiaries must receive travel documents within 15 days. Officials must reconsider two additional applications without relying on Presidential Proclamations 10949 and 10998.
| Court-ordered action | Number of beneficiaries | Deadline or requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Issue travel documents | 5 | Within 15 days |
| Reconsider applications | 2 | Without applying the travel-ban proclamations |
The dispute began after the State Department refused to process reunification requests for Afghan asylees and their relatives. Officials treated the relatives’ nationality and the presidential proclamations as grounds to deny or halt the applications.
The two proclamations expanded restrictions to Afghan nationals and 39 other countries. The litigation challenged their use against relatives of people already granted asylum in the United States.
The government’s position also implicated an asylum-related exception in the proclamations. The State Department had categorically denied “follow-to-join” petitions for spouses and children of Afghan asylees already living in the United States.
The ruling protects the relatives in court, not every traveler
The case centers on derivative asylees, or relatives whose immigration claims depend on the approved asylum status of a spouse or parent. Trenga’s order addresses whether those family members can be blocked under restrictions that state they do not apply to people seeking asylum.
The ruling does not strike down the entire travel policy. Instead, the government may not rely on the proclamations to deny reunification to the asylum-related beneficiaries covered by this litigation.
The litigation affects thousands of Afghan asylees and their families. Many have remained separated since the 2021 U.S. withdrawal, including the August 2021 withdrawal from Kabul.
The court’s approach treats derivative relatives as entitled to the same asylum-related protections as the principal applicant. That interpretation directly affects the processing of travel documents and follow-to-join requests in the case.
The five beneficiaries now have a defined deadline. The two other applicants must receive a new review.
A wider 39-country policy created the dispute
The administration expanded its travel restrictions in late 2025 to cover 39 countries, citing national security after domestic incidents. The policy placed holds on immigration benefits, including green cards, work permits and asylum, for nationals of those countries.
Afghan family applications became part of that broader system. The proclamations stated that they did not apply to people seeking asylum, but officials still denied follow-to-join requests involving relatives of Afghan asylees in the United States.
Republican majorities in Congress pursued the One Big Beautiful Bill Act alongside the administration’s immigration measures. Those efforts sought to streamline removals and limit asylum.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have been named as defendants in related litigation in their official capacities. Trenga’s order directly concerns the State Department’s processing of the applications.
The case’s immediate remedy remains narrower than the nationwide immigration disputes surrounding the 39-country policy. It orders action for identified beneficiaries while preserving the broader restrictions outside the claims before the Virginia court.
Other judges are weighing separate immigration holds
Trenga’s order arrived amid several challenges to the administration’s immigration policies. On June 5, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell of the District of Rhode Island addressed a separate freeze on immigration applications for nationals of the 39 restricted countries.
McConnell wrote that applicants had not caused the delays themselves.
“USCIS's hold on adjudications cannot be attributed to anything that these individuals did wrong; rather, it arises solely by the happenstance of their birth. [the policies] threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo.”
That litigation, identified as Dorcas International, involved policies that had frozen millions of immigration applications. The court vacated those policies and required the government to resume processing for applicants from the restricted countries.
The Virginia and Rhode Island cases address different government actions. Trenga’s order focuses on travel documents for relatives of approved Afghan asylees, while McConnell’s ruling concerns a broader hold on immigration-benefit adjudications.
Other cases produced separate rulings this summer. On July 23, District Judge Nathaniel Gorton granted an emergency motion blocking termination of work authorizations for Temporary Protected Status holders and certain asylum seekers under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
On June 25, the Supreme Court ruled in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that the administration could continue metering at the border. The ruling also clarified that metering does not override existing statutory asylum rights once a person is on U.S. soil.
Court supervision will continue as officials process the cases
As of July 30, 2026, the Virginia litigation remains active. The court is retaining oversight until the plaintiffs arrive in the United States.
That supervision covers the 15-day deadline for five travel documents and the required reconsideration of two applications. Officials must carry out those steps without applying the challenged proclamations to the beneficiaries covered by the order.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
