In a significant update to EIG’s prior coverage of Federal Court Temporarily Blocks Portions of USCIS TPS and Asylum Fee Policies, a federal judge in Massachusetts has issued a new ruling that allows USCIS to continue implementing certain TPS-related work authorization restrictions while continuing to block portions of the agency’s Annual Asylum Fee (AAF) enforcement policies.
Background
As previously reported, the court had temporarily halted several USCIS policies implementing provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), including:
- TPS-based EAD expiration changes;
- Rejection of asylum applications for nonpayment of the AAF;
- Termination of work authorization based on nonpayment of the AAF; and
- Removal-related actions tied solely to AAF nonpayment.
The latest decision revisits those issues as the litigation moves forward.
Court Allows TPS Work Permit Restrictions to Proceed
The court declined to block USCIS’ implementation of the one-year cap on TPS-related Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).
Plaintiffs argued that USCIS unlawfully shortened previously issued TPS work authorization extensions and improperly applied the policy to existing TPS beneficiaries. However, Judge Nathaniel Gorton found that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on those claims and concluded that USCIS was carrying out the requirements enacted by Congress through H.R. 1.
As a result:
- USCIS may continue limiting TPS-based EADs to one year.
- Previously issued automatic TPS EAD extensions may be shortened in accordance with the agency’s implementation of the statute.
- Certain TPS beneficiaries from countries such as El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan could see work authorization expire sooner than originally anticipated.
Court Continues to Block Key Annual Asylum Fee Penalties
The court reached a different conclusion regarding USCIS’ implementation of penalties tied to the Annual Asylum Fee.
Judge Gorton found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in challenging portions of the April 2026 Interim Final Rule that would:
- Reject asylum applications for failure to pay the AAF; and
- Trigger other adverse consequences based on nonpayment.
The court determined that these measures affect substantive rights and therefore likely required notice-and-comment rulemaking before implementation. As a result, the court issued a stay preventing USCIS from enforcing those provisions while the case proceeds.