- The 75-country immigrant visa freeze has been struck down. The court found the policy unlawful and exceeded the Secretary of State's authority.
- The ruling applies beyond the individual plaintiffs. The court vacated the policy itself and set aside visa refusals based solely on it.
- The order is effective immediately, but relief may take time. The State Department still needs to implement the ruling across consular posts and address a backlog of affected cases.
- An appeal is likely. The government could seek a stay while an appeal moves forward.
- Separate travel restrictions are not affected. The ruling does not invalidate presidential travel or entry restrictions under INA § 212(f).
A federal judge has struck down the State Department policy that suspended immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries. The order is effective immediately, but affected applicants may not see their cases move right away.
On August 21, 2026, Judge Jeannette Vargas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the State Department's 75-country immigrant visa freeze.
The court vacated the policy itself. It also set aside immigrant visa refusals based solely on the policy and ordered those cases returned to consular officers for further review.
What was the 75-country immigrant visa freeze?
The State Department announced the policy in January 2026.
It directed consular officers to refuse immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries under INA § 221(g), a temporary refusal provision, even when the applicant was otherwise eligible for the visa.
The policy effectively stopped immigrant visa issuance for nationals of nearly 40% of the world's countries.
Why did the court strike down the 75-country visa freeze?
The court identified three main problems:
Nationality-based discrimination
The court held that the policy violated the INA's prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in immigrant visa issuance.
Improper use of INA § 221(g)
The court found that the State Department could not use § 221(g) to refuse an immigrant visa when no lawful ground for refusal existed.
The Secretary exceeded his authority
Under the INA, consular officers decide whether individual visa applications should be granted or refused. The court found that the Secretary of State could not dictate the outcome through a department-wide policy.
The court called the policy "patently unlawful."
Who does the ruling apply to?
The court did not simply order the State Department to reconsider the cases of the people who sued. It vacated the 75-country policy itself.
The court also set aside immigrant visa refusals that were based solely on the policy. Those cases must go back to consular officers for further review without relying on the freeze.
The ruling does not guarantee visa issuance. Consular officers can still refuse an application based on another lawful ground of inadmissibility.
Will affected immigrant visa cases start moving immediately?
Not necessarily. The order is effective immediately, but the State Department will need to implement the ruling across consular posts. Previously refused cases may also take time to reopen and move forward.
Affected applicants can consider contacting the relevant consular post or National Visa Center about their cases. But they should expect that it may take time to see movement given the backlog of cases affected by the policy.
What does the ruling not change?
The decision does not invalidate separate presidential travel or entry restrictions under INA § 212(f).
Visa issuance and admission to the United States are separate legal questions. An applicant who is no longer subject to the 75-country visa freeze could still be subject to a separate restriction on entry.
Consular officers can also continue to refuse immigrant visas based on public charge or another lawful ground of inadmissibility.
What happens next after the ruling?
An appeal is likely. The government could ask a court to stay the ruling while the appeal moves forward. If a stay is granted, it could change the immediate effect of the decision.
The other issue to watch is implementation. The State Department will need to determine how consular posts handle pending cases and cases previously refused solely because of the policy.
What should affected applicants and employers do?
Affected applicants can consider contacting the relevant consular post or National Visa Center about next steps, while recognizing that it may take time to see movement.
Employers with affected employees should work with immigration counsel to identify impacted cases and determine next steps as the State Department begins implementing the ruling.
Alma is monitoring State Department implementation and any appeal or request to stay the ruling. We will provide updates as more information becomes available.
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, No. 1:26-cv-00858-JAV (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2026).
