Rant - 39 country ban
USCIS has placed a blanket hold on applications for nationals of 39 countries.
If the stated goal is stricter vetting, a blanket hold is 10000% the wrong mechanism.
- A hold does not equal stricter review. It just delays adjudication.
If anything, officers are more likely to deprioritize these cases because they can’t be approved anyway.
- No review is happening during the hold
These cases are not being “more carefully reviewed” - they are being parked.
If stricter vetting were the goal, cases would move forward with additional checks, not sit untouched.
- It likely increases, not reduces, risk
People stuck in limbo face uncertainty around work authorization and financial stability.
A system that leaves large numbers of individuals unable to work or plan their lives does not reduce risk — it creates instability that can have bad downstream consequences.
- It contradicts enforcement logic
If someone is a risk, the rational path is to review and deny - allowing them to leave the country and enabling enforcement outcomes.
- Lawsuits are being misunderstood
Legal challenges are not asking USCIS to approve cases immediately.
They are asking USCIS to do its job — adjudicate cases instead of holding them indefinitely.
Requiring action does not eliminate scrutiny; it forces it.
Bottom line:
If the objective were truly stricter vetting, this policy would look very different.
Instead, it applies a blanket hold disproportionately affecting nationals from African and Asian countries, without adding any meaningful review.
When the mechanism doesn’t match the stated goal, it raises a serious question about intent.
Policies like this don’t hold up well under legal scrutiny - and courts tend to see through them.
McBean’s lawsuit is going to be successful. And several others will follow.