Red Eagle Class Covers Pending I-589, I-485, and Other USCIS Applications

A California federal court ordered U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to resume ordinary processing for applications covered by two nationality-based adjudication holds. The order came August 24, 2026, in Red Eagle Law, L.C., et al. v. Joseph B. Edlow, 26-cv-04850-CRB, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The ruling applies to a defined group of applicants. They must meet the nationality requirement, have an application covered by one of the holds, and have lacked a final decision when the court certified the class.

The affected cases include asylum filings on Form I-589. The group also includes other pending USCIS benefit applications, including adjustment-of-status filings on Form I-485, when the agency placed those cases under the challenged policies.

USCIS described the order in an official alert.

“On Aug. 24, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order in Red Eagle Law, L.C., et al., v. Joseph B. Edlow, 26-cv-04850-CRB (NDCA), enjoining PM 602-0192, and PM 602-0194. USCIS is ordered to adjudicate applications in the normal course of USCIS' process.”

The agency also said, “Further, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.”

The order reaches applications that remained unresolved

The class covers citizens or natives of one or more of the 39 countries identified in Presidential Proclamations 10949 or 10998. It also covers people identified as natives or citizens of the Palestinian Authority.

Nationality alone does not establish coverage. An applicant must also have a pending USCIS benefit request affected by the holds, and the case must not have received final adjudication by the certification date.

The order names two policies: PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194. Cases outside those holds do not fall within the certified group based on the order’s stated limits.

That restriction reaches beyond asylum. Pending adjustment-of-status cases can qualify when the agency held them under either memorandum. The same condition applies to other pending USCIS benefit requests covered by the policies.

The two holds set the dates and boundaries

The court’s directive moves affected cases back into the agency’s ordinary adjudication process. It does not create a separate approval standard or decide the merits of an individual application.

USCIS must resume processing, not decide the outcome

The practical effect is a change in handling. A covered asylum case should no longer remain frozen solely because of the two memoranda, and other covered benefit applications should likewise return to regular processing.

The order does not guarantee approval. It also does not promise a particular processing time.

USCIS will still adjudicate each application under its applicable requirements. The class order addresses the hold, not the underlying merits of every case.

The case challenges the hold itself

The lawsuit challenges USCIS’s policy of freezing certain immigration-benefit applications based on an applicant’s citizenship or country of origin. The class order therefore addresses the mechanism that paused the cases rather than resolving each applicant’s eligibility for the requested benefit.

Joseph B. Edlow appears as the named defendant in the case caption. The proceeding is identified as Red Eagle Law, L.C., et al. v. Joseph B. Edlow, 26-cv-04850-CRB, in the Northern District of California.

Applicants who believe their cases fit the certified group should compare their nationality, pending benefit request, and case status with the order’s conditions. They should also monitor USCIS notices and account updates as the agency applies the directive.