A federal judge in Manhattan has set aside the policy that has blocked US immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries since January. In a 61-page opinion filed on 21 August 2026, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York held that the suspension was "contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority" and vacated it under the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling goes further than stopping the policy going forward: it also vacates every immigrant visa refusal that rested solely on the policy and sends those cases back to the State Department for a fresh decision. For families who have watched approved petitions stall at consulates for seven months, the queue is legally unblocked, though the practical restart will take time.
Background
On 14 January 2026 the State Department announced that, effective 21 January, it would suspend the issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries, on the basis that immigrants from those countries posed a high risk of becoming a public charge. The same day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent a cable to all diplomatic and consular posts telling consular officers to implement it. The instruction was categorical: refuse immigrant visas to nationals of the designated countries even where the officer had carried out an individualised assessment and concluded the applicant was not likely to become a public charge and was otherwise eligible. As the court put it, the policy had the effect of banning immigrant visas for nationals of nearly 40% of the world's countries. News agency reporting has identified Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Somalia among those designated; the opinion itself does not reproduce the list.
What the court decided
The case was brought by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) and African Communities Together, together with individual visa applicants and US citizens sponsoring relatives. Judge Vargas found that the Immigration and Nationality Act "explicitly strips the Secretary of State of authority over consular adjudication of immigrant visas", and that the policy nonetheless overrode consular officers' individual decisions. She called it "patently unlawful". When the government argued that a refusal was lawful because it was nominally issued under an existing INA provision, the court described the reasoning as "an exercise in Orwellian logic", noting the government had identified no provision of law permitting an officer to refuse a visa to an otherwise eligible applicant.
What the judgment does
- Vacates the policy suspending immigrant visas for nationals of the 75 designated countries, as contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority
- Vacates any immigrant visa refusal based solely on that policy, and remands those decisions to the agency for further proceedings
- Declares that the government violated 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) and 22 C.F.R. § 40.6, and that the policy exceeded the Secretary of State's authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a)
- Directs the parties to file a joint letter by 11 September 2026 on how to handle the remaining claims
Who it affects
The people most directly affected are immigrant visa applicants who are nationals of the designated countries and whose cases were refused or left unprocessed after 21 January: spouses and children of US citizens and permanent residents, parents and siblings in the family preference queues, and employment-based applicants interviewing abroad. It also reaches the US-based sponsors, some of whom were plaintiffs. A US citizen who filed for a spouse two years ago and watched the interview end in a refusal letter citing nothing but nationality now has a decision that must be revisited. Diversity visa selectees from designated countries sit in a harder position, because their eligibility is tied to the fiscal year rather than to an open-ended queue.
What this means in practice
Nothing is automatic. The judgment obliges the State Department to make individual decisions again rather than reissue a blanket denial, but it sets no deadline for consular posts to act and guarantees no particular outcome. If your case was refused on this basis, keep the refusal notice, confirm your case status through the consular post that handled it, and take advice on whether to ask for the case to be re-opened rather than start again. The government has not said whether it will appeal. The State Department told reporters on 22 August only that it upholds "the highest standards of screening and vetting" and would not comment on pending litigation. Our United States country guide at /country-guides/united-states tracks the entry and residence rules as they stand.
Effective now
The Opinion and Order was filed on 21 August 2026 in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, No. 1:26-cv-00858 (JAV) (S.D.N.Y.). The court entered partial judgment under Rule 54(b) and did not stay its own ruling.
What is not yet confirmed
The full list of the 75 designated countries is not reproduced in the opinion. It is also not yet known whether the government will appeal to the Second Circuit or seek a stay, how quickly consular posts will resume processing, or how remanded refusals will be prioritised. The parties are due to tell the court by 11 September 2026 how they propose to handle the remaining claims.
Key Takeaway
The nationality-based immigrant visa ban is vacated and refusals made under it must be decided again on their individual merits, but applicants should expect a slow restart rather than an immediate approval.