Lawsuit Challenges U.S. Green Card Freeze Targeting 75 Countries Public Charge Concern Clinic

(NEW YORK) — An indefinite pause on immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries took effect Jan. 21, 2026, triggering immediate disruption for family- and employment-based green card applicants abroad and prompting a major federal lawsuit filed today, Feb. 2, 2026.

The policy was announced Jan. 14, 2026, by the U.S. Department of State, which said it would rely on “long-standing authority” to deem certain intending immigrants inadmissible on public charge grounds while it “reassesses” procedures.

Although public-charge inadmissibility is rooted in INA § 212(a)(4), challengers argue this pause operates like a nationality-based ban rather than an individualized assessment.

1) Policy announcement and legal challenge

In practical terms, an “indefinite pause on immigrant visa processing” means many affected applicants abroad may see immigrant-visa cases stop moving at key stages: interview scheduling, final adjudication at the consulate, and visa issuance after approval.

For many families, it can also mean longer separation even after an I-130 petition is approved.

The sequence has been fast. The State Department announced the pause on Jan. 14, implemented it on Jan. 21, and now faces litigation challenging both the scope and the nationality-based impact.

2) Lawsuit details and legal arguments

The lawsuit is Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) v. U.S. Department of State, filed Feb. 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:26-cv-00858.

Plaintiffs include organizational groups—CLINIC and others—alongside U.S. citizens and individuals alleging family separation and job-related harm.

This coalition structure is typical in high-impact immigration litigation, because organizations may assert mission-based injuries while individuals show concrete, personal harm.

The complaint’s core legal theories, as described by the plaintiffs, include:

• Nationality-based restriction claims, arguing the policy functions as an unlawful ban based on country of origin.
• Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges, often framed as agency action that exceeds statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, or was adopted without required procedures. (APA claims generally arise under 5 U.S.C. § 706.)
• Constitutional principles claims, including equal-protection-type arguments that government action cannot disfavor groups without sufficient justification.
• An allegation that the government is effectively reshaping public charge adjudications through a broad categorical pause, rather than applying individualized factors as public-charge determinations typically require.

In these cases, plaintiffs commonly seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief, such as a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction to halt implementation while the case proceeds.

Warning: Litigation can move quickly, but emergency relief is not automatic. A court may set rapid briefing deadlines, or it may decline immediate intervention.

3) State Department policy: what is paused, what is not

On the consular side, the pause applies to immigrant visas processed abroad. That includes both family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant categories.

It does not simply affect “new” cases. It can also affect cases at the last step, including those awaiting interview or final issuance.

“Consular processing” usually runs through the National Visa Center (NVC) and then the U.S. embassy or consulate. Disruption can occur at multiple points: document review at NVC, interview scheduling, or post-interview issuance.

Carve-outs matter. The government has indicated the pause does not apply to nonimmigrant visas, such as B-1/B-2 visitors, F-1 students, and temporary work visas like the H-1B.

The policy also reportedly does not apply where a person is a dual national and applies using a passport from a country not subject to the pause.

Tip: If you hold dual nationality, confirm which passport was used for DS-260 processing and any consular appointment. A mismatch can create delays or refusals.

4) USCIS domestic actions and re-vetting: what changes inside the U.S.

Separate from consular operations, USCIS has described “adjudication holds” affecting certain applicants inside the United States.

According to USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194 (Jan. 1, 2026), USCIS may hold pending benefit requests—described as including green card applications, work permits, and asylum-related filings—for individuals from a subset of countries referenced in a presidential proclamation.

An “adjudication hold” typically looks like a case that stops moving without a denial, often paired with additional screening. Applicants may receive Requests for Evidence (RFEs), Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), or new interview scheduling.

The memo also describes “re-vetting” for certain prior grants. That is different from routine review. Re-vetting can mean reopening scrutiny of prior approvals, potentially including additional interviews, updated background checks, and renewed evidence of eligibility.

Deadline: If USCIS issues an RFE or NOID during a hold or re-vetting review, the response deadline is usually strict. Missing it may result in denial.

Tip: Keep copies of prior filings, approval notices, and supporting documents. Re-vetting reviews often ask for updated, consistent evidence.

5) Key facts, scale, and likely impact on families and employers

A pause affecting 75 countries is unusually broad. Even without listing every country, the geographic range is substantial.

Reports have referenced countries across Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Europe and Asia, including examples like Brazil, Colombia, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco, Ghana, Guatemala, Somalia, and Russia.

The real-world consequences are predictable even if precise numbers are debated. Families may face longer separation after petition approval. Employers may lose planned start dates for sponsored hires, or face project delays.

Hospitals and research institutions can be affected when key staff cannot complete consular processing.

Impact estimates are typically derived from historical immigrant-visa issuance levels and assumptions about what share comes from the affected countries. Those estimates can shift with demand, category caps, and backlogs.

Warning: Do not assume a consular case will “auto-resume.” Indefinite pauses can last months or longer unless changed by policy or court order.

6) Official sources and documents to monitor (and what to look for)

For reliable updates, readers should prioritize official sources:

• State Department visa operations updates
• USCIS newsroom and policy updates
• DHS public statements

When you review any announcement, check the issuance date, the issuing office, and whether the document says it supersedes earlier guidance.

For USCIS memoranda, confirm the memo number and publication location within uscis.gov.

7) How to interpret scope while the case proceeds

Court challenges can change timelines, but they do not always restore processing immediately. Even if a judge issues an injunction, agencies sometimes seek a stay pending appeal, and implementation practices can vary by post and by case posture.

Applicants should separate two tracks:

1. Consular processing: track NVC messages, interview scheduling, and consular case status.
2. USCIS domestic benefits: track online case status and mailed notices, and be prepared for additional screening steps.

Recommended actions now:

1. Confirm whether your case is consular or USCIS-based, and where it is stuck.
2. If you have travel plans on a nonimmigrant visa, confirm eligibility and documentation.
3. Speak with an immigration attorney quickly if you have deadlines, expiring work authorization, or family separation issues.

Resources:

AILA Lawyer Referral