On August 21, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an important ruling overturning the U.S. Department of State’s suspension of immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries, calling the policy “patently unlawful.” In Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. et al. v. Rubio et al., the court held that the policy was contrary to law and exceeded the statutory authority of the Secretary of State.
The Policy and Its Impact
The Department of State announced the suspension on January 14, 2026, with an effective date of January 21. The policy directed consular officers to refuse immigrant visa applications from nationals of designated countries, stating that “[a]pplicants from these countries are at a high risk for becoming a public charge and recourse to local, state, and federal government resources in the United States.”
The policy directed consular officers to deny the visa even where they had determined through an individualized assessment that the applicant was not likely to become a public charge and was otherwise eligible for a visa. The policy covered 75 nations, representing nearly 40% of the world’s countries.
The opinion specified that the countries were selected with “public assistance and welfare-use statistics from the Council of Economic Advisors, which calculated the percentage of immigrant households receiving some form of public assistance by country of origin.” It explained that the policy prohibited applicants from receiving immigrant visas for countries where the percentage of households receiving assistance was greater than 30%, with the exception of certain nations for foreign policy reasons. The decision further noted that the policy was not accompanied by a notice-and-comment period.
For EB-5 investors, this meant that an application for a conditional green card, Form I-526E, could be filed and approved, but no immigrant visa issued until the Department of State reviewed its screening and vetting procedures related to public charge concerns, with no timeframe given. In practice, this meant that eligible EB-5 applicants’ timelines for resettling in the United States were delayed as they awaited relief from the pause.
The Lawsuit and Decision
Several plaintiffs, including immigrant rights groups, applicants for immigrant visas from designated countries, and United States citizens sponsoring family members from designated countries for immigrant visas, sought to overturn the policy and succeeded. The court’s decision rested on several provisions of the INA and its implementing regulations.
First, the court found that the policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides that, subject to limited exceptions, an individual may not be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of nationality, among other characteristics. The court concluded that the categorical suspension was inconsistent with this requirement because it required visa refusals based solely on nationality.
Second, the court found that the policy violated a second provision of the INA and federal regulations implementing the law. The court explained that this section authorizes visa refusal when an applicant is legally ineligible, while the regulation provides that a visa may be refused only on a ground specifically established by law or regulation. The challenged policy, however, required officers to refuse applicants even when no other legal ground for refusal had been identified.
Third, the court concluded that the Secretary of State exceeded his statutory authority. The INA expressly limits the Secretary’s authority over the functions of consular officers relating to the granting or refusal of visas. By directing officers to refuse visas to nationals of the designated countries, the policy improperly predetermined visa outcomes that Congress had entrusted to consular officers.
Importantly, the court did not find that the policy violated the INA’s public-charge provision itself. The court concluded that the policy continued to direct consular officers to conduct individualized public-charge assessments. The legal problem instead arose from the categorical nationality-based suspension and the requirement that otherwise eligible applicants be refused.
What the Ruling Does
The court determined that vacating the policy was appropriate because the defects therein were fundamental rather than merely procedural. It therefore vacated the policy and also set aside immigrant visa refusals that were based solely on the policy, remanding those cases to consular officers for further adjudication. The court expressly stated that the decision does not extend to visa refusals based on other grounds of ineligibility under the INA or another provision of law.
For prospective EB-5 investors from the affected countries, the decision removes the specific nationality-based suspension addressed by the court. It restores the opportunity for affected immigrant visa applications to be considered under the statutory framework rather than being categorically refused because of nationality. The court also made clear, however, that vacatur does not guarantee visa issuance, consular officers retain their authority to determine whether an individual applicant is eligible.
The Story Continues as State Department Issues New Global Pause on Immigrant Visa Interviews
On August 26, 2026, the State Department temporarily paused immigrant visa interviews at all U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide while consular officers receive training on public-charge guidance. Applicants with scheduled interviews are reportedly being notified that their appointments are cancelled and will be rescheduled, although no timeline has been provided. Current reports suggest the pause applies to immigrant, rather than nonimmigrant, visas, while pre-interview processing should continue.
The State Department has not linked the new pause to that ruling, but the development adds another source of uncertainty for EB-5 investors completing their cases through consular processing.