A federal judge has ruled that the State Department policy freezing immigrant visa approvals for nationals of 75 countries exceeds the government’s legal authority. If you or a relative has been waiting on a visa from one of those countries, read the next sentence carefully. The order applies to one applicant, not to everyone.
What the Court Held
In De Moura Gomes v. Rubio, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta found that the policy exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to Bloomberg Law. The statute assigns consular officers, not the Secretary of State, the responsibility to evaluate each visa application individually and decide whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge.
According to the court, the policy unlawfully eliminated that officer-level discretion by requiring refusals from the listed countries even where an applicant had demonstrated financial self-sufficiency and otherwise qualified for approval.
The court ordered the State Department to adjudicate the plaintiff’s EB-5 investor visa application. That injunction runs to the plaintiff. It does not, by itself, lift the freeze for the other applicants affected.
Where the Policy Came From
The State Department adopted the policy in January 2026, framing it as a pause on immigrant visa issuance for nationalities at high risk of relying on public benefits. Consular officers were directed to refuse covered applications while the government developed additional screening procedures.
More Read
The freeze hit family-based applicants hardest and also swept in some employment-based and investment-based cases. Reporting on the litigation has identified Nigeria, Colombia, Russia and Egypt among the covered countries.
The Bigger Case Is Still Pending
A separate and broader challenge, CLINIC v. Rubio, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It was filed February 2, 2026 by the National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward, The Legal Aid Society, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the Center for Constitutional Rights and Colombo and Hurd, on behalf of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, African Communities Together and individual plaintiffs.
That suit argues the ban violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Constitution, and it asks the court to vacate the freeze outright and order a return to individualized visa processing. The case is pending on cross-motions for partial summary judgment.
More Read
Judge Mehta’s reasoning does not bind the New York court. But a written conclusion that the underlying policy is unlawful is exactly the kind of authority other plaintiffs will cite.
Who Is Affected
Applicants with pending immigrant visa cases at consulates in the covered countries, and the U.S. citizens and permanent residents who petitioned for them. For many families this has meant an indefinite separation with no denial to appeal and no clear timeline.
What This Means for You
The freeze has not been lifted. Do not assume your interview will now be scheduled or your case reopened because of this ruling.
Keep your file current anyway. Medical examinations, police certificates and civil documents all expire. If the policy is vacated or narrowed, the applicants who move fastest will be the ones whose paperwork is already valid.
Individual litigation is a real option, and it worked here. An action under the Administrative Procedure Act or a mandamus petition can force adjudication in a specific case. It is slow and expensive, so discuss the realistic cost and odds with an immigration attorney before committing.
Document financial support thoroughly. Because the policy is built on public charge reasoning, a strong Form I-864 affidavit of support, sponsor income evidence and asset documentation strengthen both your consular case and any litigation you may bring.
Watch the New York case. An order vacating the policy would change the picture for everyone covered. An individual injunction, however welcome, does not.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.
Follow @DailyImmigrant for accurate, timely immigration news and updates every day.
