United States: Federal District Court Vacates State Department’s 75-Country Immigrant Visa Ban
August 24, 2026
Country / Territory
Share
At a glance
- A federal district court has determined that the State Department’s 75-country ban on issuance of immigrant visas violated federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The State Department must resume immigrant visa issuance for nationals of the affected countries and must reconsider immigrant visa applications that were denied or refused solely on the basis of the ban.
- The agency could appeal the decision.
The issue
Late Friday, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated the State Department’s suspension of the issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from 75 countries. Judge Vargas ruled that the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the anti-discrimination and other provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and implementing regulations, and determined that the ban exceeded Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s authority under the INA. Judge Vargas also granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the case.
In addition, Judge Vargas set aside any refusal of an immigrant visa that was based solely on the policy of suspending the issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from the 75 designated countries. The set-aside does not apply to immigrant visa denials where the consular officer determined that the applicant was ineligible for the visa on grounds other than or in addition to the DOS policy at issue.
The case is Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) v. Rubio, Case No. 1:26-cv-00858 (S.D.N.Y., filed February 2, 2026).
Background
On January 21, 2026, the State Department began to implement an indefinite suspension of the issuance of immigrant visas for applicants from 75 countries. The agency said that the ban was being instituted so that it could reassess the procedures used to determine whether a visa applicant is likely to become a public charge, i.e., whether the applicant is likely to depend on the U.S. government for financial assistance at any time in the future.
The suspension applied to nationals of the following countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, 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.
During the suspension, affected applicants could submit applications and attend interviews, but the State Department would not adjudicate the applications to completion or issue immigrant visas.
Earlier this month, the agency launched an immigrant visa public charge bond pilot program, under which a consular officer can require an immigrant visa applicant found likely to become a public charge to post a bond in order to receive a visa; if, after immigrating to the United States, the foreign national receives public benefits in the form of cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense, the bond would be deemed breached and the foreign national would be liable for the amount of the bond. That program is not directly affected by Judge Vargas’s order.
What this means for foreign nationals
The State Department may appeal the court’s ruling, but in the meantime, U.S. consulates should resume adjudicating immigrant visas from nationals of the 75 countries, and they are expected to reopen visa applications that were denied or refused solely on the basis of the public charge ban on immigrant visa issuance.
Fragomen will provide updates as we learn more about the impact of the court decision vacating the ban and any appeal by the government.
This alert is for informational purposes only. If you have any questions, please contact the immigration professional with whom you work at Fragomen.
