Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS — First Circuit partially stays district court’s APA judgment

Case
Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island; Refugee Dream Center; Service Employees International Union; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; African Communities Together; Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts; Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans; American Gateways v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Joseph Edlow; Department of Homeland Security; Markwayne Mullin
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Judge
Montecalvo (Joe Biden, 2022); Aframe (Joe Biden, 2024); DUNLAP (Donald Trump, 2025)
Date Decided
August 14, 2026
Docket No.
26-1703
Topics
Administrative Procedure Act; immigration; stay pending appeal; USCIS
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Immigrant-services organizations, labor unions, and advocacy groups challenged USCIS policies under the Administrative Procedure Act. On June 11, 2026, the district court entered a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) partial final judgment for the plaintiffs on two APA claims and stayed three policies.

The government sought an emergency stay pending appeal. It argued, among other things, that the challenged policies were not agency action under the APA, that any agency action was not final, and that the claims were unripe.

The Court’s Holding

The First Circuit granted the government’s stay motion only in part. It stayed the district court’s stay of the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, which directs USCIS personnel to conduct a comprehensive re-review of approved benefit requests for aliens from specified countries who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021.

The court denied a stay as to the district court’s stays of the other two policies. Applying the stay factors from Nken v. Holder, the panel concluded that the government had not carried its burden to justify stay relief as to those policies.

Key Takeaways

  • The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy may proceed while the appeal is pending.
  • The district court’s stays of the other two policies remain in effect.
  • The order addresses interim stay relief and does not resolve the APA claims on the merits.

Why It Matters

The order preserves only one portion of the government’s requested interim relief. It underscores that a party seeking a stay pending appeal bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify that extraordinary relief, with likelihood of success and irreparable injury being the most critical considerations.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top