(MARYLAND) — U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III ordered USCIS to resume processing green card applications for 83 plaintiffs whose cases had been put on hold under a country-based policy tied to a national-security review.

Russell did not order the agency to approve the applications. He ordered USCIS to process them rather than leave them in indefinite limbo, drawing a line between the government’s power to vet and deny cases and its ability to stop deciding them altogether.

The ruling applies to plaintiffs already inside the United States who filed adjustment of status applications, commonly known as Form I-485. Many had lived in the country for years and maintained lawful status while waiting for USCIS to act on pending requests for permanent residence.

At issue was not whether those applicants were entitled to a green card automatically. The dispute centered on whether USCIS could accept filings, collect fees and then suspend adjudication because of a country-based policy.

That distinction sits at the heart of the case. Immigration agencies have discretion to approve or deny adjustment cases, but the ruling challenged the idea that the same discretion lets the agency avoid making a decision at all.

The hold developed in the shadow of Proclamation 10998, published in the Federal Register in December 2025. The proclamation continued restrictions on nationals of 12 countries, added full restrictions for seven more countries, and added partial restrictions for 15 additional countries.

It also covered certain Palestinian Authority travel documents. University immigration offices identified 39 countries as affected by the USCIS benefit-hold policy: Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burma/Myanmar, Burundi, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, The Gambia, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The State Department said Proclamation 10998 applies to foreign nationals who were outside the United States on January 1, 2026 and did not hold a valid visa on that effective date. It also said visas issued before that date would not be revoked under the proclamation.

That legal backdrop mattered because travel restrictions and in-country benefit adjudications are not the same thing. A travel ban governs entry into the United States, while adjustment of status asks USCIS to decide an immigration benefit for someone already in the country.

Russell’s order does not grant any plaintiff a green card. It does not eliminate national-security screening, create extra immigrant visa numbers, solve the employment-based backlog for India or China, or impose a fixed deadline for decisions in all similar cases.

Nor does the ruling automatically cover every applicant nationwide whose case has stalled under a similar policy. The direct benefit runs to the 83 plaintiffs, though the court’s reasoning is likely to shape arguments by others who say USCIS has left their cases frozen without a meaningful path to adjudication.

Indian applicants are not, in most cases, directly covered by the 39-country list tied to this dispute. Even so, the decision carries weight well beyond that group because it reinforces a broader limit on indefinite non-adjudication after the government accepts an application and filing fee.

That principle reaches categories familiar to many Indian families and professionals: employment-based adjustment of status, family-based green card cases, EAD renewals, advance parole applications, H-4 EAD-related filings, F-1 OPT and STEM OPT employment authorization, naturalization cases delayed after interview, and cases slowed by security-check or administrative-review delays.

The decision does not erase long USCIS processing times. It does, however, sharpen the distinction between a case moving slowly in an overburdened system and a case paused under a categorical policy with no visible endpoint.

Work authorization often turns that distinction into an immediate financial problem. Many adjustment applicants rely on an Employment Authorization Document while a green card case remains pending, and an indefinite hold on the underlying case or an EAD renewal can trigger job loss, payroll disruption, driver’s license problems, loss of health insurance and broader financial strain.

Students and recent graduates face similar exposure when OPT or STEM OPT applications slow down. USCIS has publicly said it strengthened screening and vetting for immigration benefits, particularly for individuals from identified high-risk countries.

Employers face a separate compliance problem. An expired work authorization document cannot be ignored because a renewal remains pending, but a premature termination made without understanding automatic-extension rules or pending-case status can create avoidable legal and operational trouble.

Applicants who suspect a country-based hold should treat the case first as a documentation problem. Receipt notices, biometrics notices, online account screenshots, case-status updates, attorney correspondence, job-offer letters, EAD expiration dates, payroll notices and other written proof of harm can become central if the dispute moves beyond routine follow-up.

Legal strategy depends on the reason for the delay. A case outside normal processing time may call for a service request, a congressional inquiry or an Ombudsman request; a deliberate indefinite pause may push applicants toward stronger options, including an Administrative Procedure Act or mandamus-style lawsuit.

International travel remains a separate risk. Travel-ban rules, advance parole validity, pending adjustment status and consular restrictions can interact in ways that turn a delayed case into a more serious immigration problem.

Families often discover the pressure first through dependency. If the principal applicant’s case stalls, a spouse’s EAD may expire, a child may approach age-out risk, and plans involving housing, healthcare, education, relocation or visits to relatives abroad can unravel quickly.

That is why lawyers often tell households to map every connected document and status, not just the pending Form I-485. EAD validity, advance parole, visa status, I-94 expiration, dependent status, school enrollment, employer sponsorship and backup options all become part of the same case picture once USCIS stops moving.

Universities and employers have their own reason to pay attention. Research appointments, clinical start dates, residency placements, grant-funded roles and faculty hiring can all hinge on pending immigration benefits that sit inside the USCIS pipeline.

Schools can help preserve records and track timelines for students, postdoctoral researchers, medical residents and faculty members whose status depends on agency action. Employers can coordinate earlier with immigration counsel, human resources teams and affected workers to identify where employment authorization depends on pending benefits.

The Maryland ruling also sends a broader signal about the legal limits of prolonged immigration pauses. Security screening itself is not unlawful under the court’s reasoning, but indefinite limbo becomes harder for the government to defend when people are already in the U.S. system and waiting for USCIS to do its job.

Different categories still face different remedies. A person refused visa issuance abroad stands in a different legal position from a person inside the United States with a pending green card application, and a student waiting for OPT does not share the same posture as an immigrant visa applicant at a consulate.

Even so, the order offers a usable principle across those differences: processing is not the same as approval, and a national-security review does not automatically justify a case sitting untouched forever. That matters in any dispute where applicants can show the agency accepted a filing, took a fee and then stopped short of adjudication.

The immediate result is narrow but tangible. Russell’s order gives the plaintiffs a meaningful win and warns USCIS that blanket freezes face legal risk when they prevent any decision from being made.

Applicants left waiting on a green card, work permit or related benefit still face the same backlogs, the same visa-number limits and the same need for careful legal advice. What changed in Maryland is the court’s willingness to say that, after USCIS opens the file, indefinite silence is not easily defended.