What Countries of Concern Mean for Immigration and Visa Processing

The United States has quietly placed 19 nations on a list of so‑called Countries of Concern, triggering sweeping changes to immigration and visa processing that are already reshaping who can enter, stay, or reunite with family in the country. The designation, formalized in a June 2025 proclamation by President Donald Trump, brings new travel restrictions, tougher background checks, and, in a sharp break from past policy, a full reexamination of green cards already issued to people from those countries.

Under the proclamation, the affected nations are Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Yemen. Nationals of these countries are now treated as higher risk in U.S. immigration systems, with direct consequences for both visa processing at consulates abroad and the status of people already living in the United States as permanent residents.

The government says the list is driven by national security and public safety concerns, but for families and workers caught up in it, the change means uncertainty, years‑long delays, and a growing fear of losing legal status.

What “Countries of Concern” means in practice

The term “Countries of Concern” is not a single legal label from one law, but rather a broad classification used across different U.S. agencies. The Secretary of State and the Department of Homeland Security both have authority to identify countries that present special risks in the immigration context, including:

• Weak identity documents
• Poor security cooperation
• Refusal to take back deported citizens

Officials stress this is separate from the older “Country of Particular Concern” category, which deals only with religious freedom violations under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. In practice, though, applicants rarely see these technical differences; what they experience is a visa system that treats them as suspect because of the passport they carry.

Which countries are affected

Below is the full list of 19 Countries of Concern designated under the proclamation:

Entry suspensions and exceptions

For these nations, the proclamation has led to full or partial suspensions of entry:

• Complete bans: Some countries (for example, Afghanistan, Chad, Somalia, and Yemen) face complete bans for both immigrants and nonimmigrants — generally meaning people cannot receive U.S. visas at all.
• Partial suspensions: Others (such as Cuba and Venezuela) face partial suspensions that block certain visa categories while leaving narrow paths open, often for U.S. lawful permanent residents or specific humanitarian or national‑interest cases.

Even where limited exceptions exist, lawyers say the bar has moved so high that approvals have become rare and processing times unpredictable.

Reexamination of existing green cards

The most dramatic shift came on November 27, 2025, when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ordered a full reexamination of all green cards issued to nationals of these Countries of Concern.

• Instead of focusing only on future applicants, USCIS is now revisiting past approvals.
• Internal guidance describes the use of “negative, country‑specific elements” in new security reviews.

For permanent residents from these nations, that language has set off alarm bells. A process that once led to stability and eventual citizenship now carries the risk of green card revocation and possible deportation if officials conclude that earlier vetting was flawed or incomplete.

Government reasoning behind the list

The administration’s criteria focus on each country’s ability to verify identities and share information. According to official judgments, many listed states “lack adequate vetting capabilities”, including:

• Failure to issue secure passports and civil records
• Governance systems too weak to support reliable background checks
• Limited willingness or capacity to cooperate in deportation or information-sharing

U.S. consular officers working in these environments are instructed to conduct far more intensive investigations, which slows visa processing. Cases that once took weeks can now stretch into many months or even years as security checks multiply, often with little explanation to applicants about the cause of the delay.

Role of visa overstay data

Visa overstay data has played a central role in building the list. The government cited sharply elevated overstay rates for visitors and students from several Countries of Concern. Examples include:

• Burma: B‑1/B‑2 visitor visa overstay rate of 27.07%; F, M, and J student/exchange visa overstay rate of 42.17%
• Sudan: B‑1/B‑2 overstay rate of 26.30%; F, M, and J overstay rate of 28.40%

These numbers, combined with doubts about local document security, have fed arguments inside the U.S. government for tougher screening and a greater willingness to deny visas outright.

Statistical effects and real‑world consequences

Government data and analysis by VisaVerge.com show substantial declines in visa issuance:

• Between fiscal years 2016 and 2019, immigrant visas issued to nationals of countries under travel restrictions fell by 69.9%.
• For Iranians, immigrant visa issuance dropped by 79% over the same period.
• Non‑immigrant visas (tourists, students, temporary workers, business travelers) declined by 84.7% during those years.

For many families and individuals, those statistics translate into profound hardships:

• Missed weddings and funerals abroad
• Students abandoning U.S. study plans after repeated denials
• Long separations as couples live apart in third countries while waiting for interviews or approvals

Impact on family‑based and employment‑based immigration

Family-based immigration:

• Spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens from Countries of Concern technically remain eligible for immigrant visas.
• In practice, they face extra scrutiny, prolonged “administrative processing,” and final denials often citing security grounds only vaguely.
• Extended relatives (adult children, siblings, parents) see waiting times lengthened beyond realistic planning horizons.
• Couples report years apart with stalled interview appointments and unexplained case delays.

Employment-based immigration:

• Employers who once recruited doctors, engineers, and tech workers from these countries now hesitate to file petitions.
• Even approved petitions may not lead to issued visas.
• Highly skilled candidates from Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia report abandoning U.S. job offers after encountering repeated refusals and security holds.
• In a competitive global talent market, the U.S. becomes a harder sell.

Humanitarian programs and asylum

The policy has affected humanitarian programs as well:

• Officials have applied the Countries of Concern logic to asylum and refugee decisions, which traditionally focus on protection needs.
• The policy notes that asylum processing for certain nationals, including Afghans, has been halted indefinitely.
• For Afghans who worked with U.S. forces or fled Taliban rule, paths once seen as lifelines are now effectively closed, leaving many stranded in unsafe conditions or stuck in legal limbo in transit countries.

Legal and policy debates

From a legal perspective, the new framework raises difficult questions:

• Officials defend the approach as necessary when countries “refuse to accept nationals deported from the United States” or fail to share basic criminal and identity data.
• They argue that without reliable partners abroad, the U.S. must err on the side of caution.
• Critics counter that tying individual fate to country‑level risk labels punishes ordinary citizens for the actions or weaknesses of their governments.
• Critics say this undercuts long‑standing principles of individual review and due process in immigration law.

What applicants are experiencing

For people caught up in the system, technical distinctions feel abstract. Common experiences include:

• Visa appointments that vanish or are canceled
• Interviews ending with cryptic references to “security checks”
• Green card renewal or naturalization plans suddenly placed at risk because of reexamination orders
• Permanent residents fearful of traveling abroad, worried a trip could lead to extended questioning or placement into removal proceedings

Lawyers report an uptick in questions from clients asking whether it is still safe to travel and how to mitigate risks.

Key takeaway: For nationals of the 19 designated Countries of Concern, formal rules are only part of the story. Much of the outcome depends on consular back rooms, security databases, and internal reviews that applicants never see.

Official resources and the lived reality

Official information on visa categories and general U.S. immigration procedures remains available on the U.S. Department of State’s portal: Visa Services. However, that site does not capture the lived reality of country‑specific restrictions, shifting standards, and opaque, case‑by‑case national security decisions.

As long as the current designations stay in place, the mix of visa processing slowdowns, steep denial rates, and deep rechecks of existing green cards will continue to shape:

1. Who from those countries can enter the United States;
2. Who can stay; and
3. Who may be told, after years of building a life in the U.S., that their time is up.