A federal court struck down the State Department’s 75-country immigrant visa pause on August 21. On paper, that should mean a return to normal processing. In practice, it doesn't.
The government has appealed and over 43,000 visa applications are awaiting a reconsideration and requiring a manual review post-by-post. Besides the current status, visa holders must note that a vacated policy is not the same as an approved visa and no official date has been announced yet.
This article talks about what the ruling aims to change, the aspects that will remain untouched, and what the applicants must expect as the legal situation continues to develop.
What was the 75-country immigrant-visa policy?
Effective January 21, 2026, the State Department paused the issuance of immigrant visas through U.S. embassies and consulates abroad to nationals of 75 countries, citing concerns that applicants from these countries posed a higher risk of relying on U.S. public benefits after admission.
The rule is limited to immigrant visas only, and nonimmigrant visas, including tourist, student, or business visas will remain untouched by the rule. Applicants affected by the new policy can still proceed in the process by submitting applications, gathering documents, and attending interviews. However, the consular officers were instructed not to issue the visa itself while the policy was in effect.
Two exceptions applied to the policy:
- Nationals with dual citizenship who could apply for a visa using a valid passport from a country not on the list
- Certain intercountry adoption cases, which could qualify for a National Interest Exception under Presidential Proclamation 10998.
Why did a federal court strike down the policy?
The lawsuit argued that the policy replaced individualized consular decision-making with a blanket, nationality-based rule. Regardless of their personal circumstances, this rule denies all applicants from the listed country, including people who had already been found unlikely to become a public charge.
Plaintiffs included:
- The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC)
- African Communities Together
- A group of individual plaintiffs (including both U.S. citizens petitioning for family members abroad and intending immigrants)
The plaintiffs argued that the rule violated the Immigration and Nationality Act's requirement of individualized adjudication and its prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in immigrant-visa issuance, and that the policy was adopted without proper rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act.
What did the August 21, 2026 ruling in CLINIC v. Rubio actually decide?
U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York ruled that the 75-country policy exceeded the Secretary of State's statutory authority and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court vacated the policy and set aside any visa refusals that were based solely on it. Further, the court ordered the State Department to return to case-by-case, individualized adjudication as required by law.
The court used vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act, rather than a plaintiff-specific injunction. Vacatur sets aside the agency’s action itself, so it applies universally. The ruling does not guarantee any applicant a visa. It removed the categorical nationality-based barrier. Applicants remain subject to all other standard eligibility requirements, which includes public-charge review and other grounds of inadmissibility. The decision also left separate, unrelated restrictions untouched such as Presidential Proclamation 10998’s restrictions covering a different set of 39 countries.
Is the 75-country pause still in effect today?
No. As of the date of publishing, the pause remains vacated, though a vacated policy is not the same as a fully restored, uniform system. The State Department's own September 8 court filing shows that more than 43,000 applications were refused solely under the policy, that reconsideration is happening on a rolling, post-by-post basis, and that many consular posts are still working through training, backlog, and postponed interviews. As per the current developments, processing has resumed in Hungary and Poland as of early September.
Did the government appeal the ruling?
Yes, the State Department filed a notice of appeal challenging the district court’s judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on September 10, 2026. However, filing an appeal will not by itself revive the policy or pause the district court’s order.
Under normal appellate procedure, a district court judgment remains legally in effect and enforceable while an appeal is pending, unless the government separately requests, and a court grants a stay. As per its current status, the government has now requested a stay: On September 14, 2026, the Justice Department asked the district court itself to pause enforcement of its August 24 partial final judgment while the appeal proceeds, arguing that requiring the reconsideration of more than 43,000 visa denials during the appeal would cause significant operational harm to consular posts. On September 25, 2026, the district court denied that request. The government has since asked the Second Circuit for a stay, and as of the date of publishing, no stay has been granted.
Will the policy come back into effect?
It could. There are two possibilities for the policy to come back into effect.
If the Second Circuit or the Supreme Court grants the government's request for a stay, the 75-country pause could be reinstated temporarily while the appeal is litigated.
If the Second Circuit rules in the government's favor on the merits, the underlying policy could be reinstated on a more permanent basis, subject to further appeal.
As of the date of publishing, neither of the above possibilities has occurred. The district court denied the government's stay request on September 25, 2026, and the government's stay request at the Second Circuit could be decided at any time. Applicants must observe both the Second Circuit's docket and the district court's docket, and any emergency stay filings, since either development could drastically shift the recent scenario.
Which 75 countries were covered by the original pause?
Per the official State Department list, the pause covers the nationals of the following countries:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
Did the policy apply to tourist or student visas?
No. The pause is only applied to immigrant visas (people seeking to become lawful permanent residents through a U.S. consulate abroad). The pause does not affect nonimmigrant visas, which include tourist (B-1/B-2), student (F-1), or other temporary visa categories.
Were there any exceptions to the pause?
Yes, two general exceptions applied:
- Applicants with dual citizenship: Applicants who hold a valid passport from a country not on the 75-country list are exempt from the pause, even if they also hold nationality from one of the listed countries. An important caveat here is that holding a second passport will not automatically resolve these issues. Rather, the consulate could still verify applicant details such as identity, nationality, and other standard eligibility requirements.
- Intercountry adoption cases: Children being adopted by U.S. citizens could qualify for a National Interest Exception under Presidential Proclamation 10998. The State Department instructed these families to continue with the usual adoption process, which includes submitting applications and attending interviews, without the requirement for additional steps to be considered for the exception.
Neither exception guaranteed visa issuance. Both the above instances meant that the applicant wasn’t automatically blocked by the nationality-based pause.
What visa categories were affected?
The pause could affect any national of one of the 75 countries applying for an immigrant visa, across the following visa categories including:
- Spouse visas (IR-1/CR-1)
- Parent and child immigrant visas
- Family-preference visas
- Employment-based immigrant visas
- Diversity immigrant visas
- Other immigrant classifications processed through consular posts
Applicants must note that being from a listed country doesn’t automatically make a visa holder ineligible for the green card. It simply means that the visa couldn’t be issued at the consular stage while the pause is in effect, unless an exception is applied.
Will the ruling affect green card applicants while residing in the U.S.?
Not directly. The 75-country policy and the CLINIC v. Rubio ruling concerned immigrant visa issuance through U.S. consulates abroad, a process for people outside the United States. A visa holder filing Form I-485 (Adjustment of Status) from within the U.S. is going through a different legal pathway, which is handled by USCIS rather than a consular post, and was not covered by this particular pause or this ruling.
What is the current status of the 43,000 cases awaiting reconsideration?
In its September 8, 2026 status report to the court, the State Department disclosed that more than 43,000 immigrant-visa applications had been refused solely under the now-vacated 75-country policy and are subject to the court's vacatur and remand order. This figure refers specifically to refusals based only on the nationality-based policy, rather than every application from one of the 75 countries on the list, or cases that also had other refusal grounds.
As per the department's own filing and disclosed next steps, these cases are being handled by:
- Determining whether the 75-country policy was the sole reason for the refusal
- Reopening or reconsidering qualifying cases on a rolling basis
- Re-applying ordinary visa-law requirements, including individualized public-charge review, rather than the blanket nationality rule
- Requesting updated documents or a new interview if earlier materials have expired
However, visa holders must note that a case being flagged for reconsideration is not the same as an approval. The applicant must still qualify under all other standard requirements. Plaintiffs in the case have also pushed back on the pace of this process, arguing in a September 9 filing that the government has not adequately shown affected applicants are being removed from limbo or properly notified. This means that the reconsideration process itself remains a disputed, active issue before the court. The government's September 14, 2026 motion seeking a stay of the judgment, which the district court denied on September 25, further shows that the pace and scope of reconsideration remain actively contested.
How will the State Department identify affected cases?
According to the government's own court filings, the identification process is not entirely automated. Some cases can be flagged systematically, but the department has indicated that certain refusals must be identified manually by individual consular sections. This includes case-by-case record reviews to confirm whether the 75-country policy was the sole ground for refusal, making it further time-consuming. This manual component could be one of the key reasons for there to be no specific timeline for review completion, and why the pace may vary significantly from one consulate to another.
What does "public charge" refer to in the immigrant-visa context?
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, "public charge" refers to a determination that an applicant is likely to become primarily dependent on the U.S. government for subsistence at any point in the future after being admitted. It is one specific ground of visa ineligibility. Importantly, a person can have an otherwise fully approved immigrant petition and still be refused a visa if a consular officer determines they are likely to become a public charge in the future. Besides that, it's a separate, independent test from petition approval.
The consular officers consider the following in a public-charge determination:
- Age
- Health
- Family status
- Assets
- Resources
- Overall financial status
- Education and skills
- The applicant's financial support after arriving in the U.S.
- Any legally relevant Affidavit of Support
What we have to say
Though immigration policies may appear to change quickly, the speed of their implementation depends on the consular post. In the meantime, applicants and employers must focus on updates about the case status from the courtroom and the consulate and not on uncertainties or guesswork.
