(DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) — Trump administration immigration officials moved to let 17 Iranian visa holders who sued over the president’s travel restrictions enter the United States, a step the government described in a court filing as consistent with the proclamations framework even as the broader appeal continues.
The development surfaced in filings lodged on January 23, 2026, in Thein v. Trump, a case that has tested how presidential entry bans interact with visa issuance and the ability of Diversity Visa winners to travel.
Government lawyers told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the 17 plaintiffs, though previously blocked from entering under Presidential Proclamation 10,949, fell within an exception recognized under the newer proclamation that continued and supplemented it. The clarification matters because it removes the entry bar for a discrete set of named plaintiffs while leaving larger legal questions for judges to weigh.
In the filing, the Justice Department wrote:
“Of the 62 Plaintiffs who were issued visas as a result of the preliminary injunction that is on appeal, 17 Plaintiffs were barred from entering the United States under Proclamation 10,949. But those 17 Plaintiffs had ‘valid visa[s] on the applicable effective date’ of the new Proclamation. Accordingly, Proclamation 10,949, as continued and supplemented by Proclamation 10,998, does not bar those 17 Plaintiffs from entering the United States.”
That position effectively clears those 17 Iranian visa holders to travel and seek admission, but it does not amount to a general reopening for nationals of countries covered by the proclamations, which remain in force.
The same day, U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan granted the administration’s Cross-Motion to Dismiss and denied the plaintiffs’ request for additional emergency relief, ending the district court litigation while the appeal proceeds in the D.C. Circuit.
For the 17 individuals, the immediate practical question is no longer whether the proclamations bar their entry. For other plaintiffs and other applicants outside the case, the restrictions and related processing constraints continue to shape who can obtain a visa and who can travel.
Thein v. Trump was filed by 102 nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Togo, Somalia, and Iran who were selected in the FY 2025 Diversity Visa lottery. The plaintiffs challenged the administration’s refusal to adjudicate or honor their visas based on travel bans, seeking relief tied to visa processing and entry.
Court filings described a divided posture among the plaintiffs, including people who obtained visas under a preliminary injunction that remains on appeal and others still seeking adjudication. The Justice Department’s January 23 explanation focused on the subset with issued visas whose entry turned on whether the proclamations barred them at the time they sought to travel.
The proclamations at the center of the dispute built on presidential authority to restrict entry of certain foreign nationals. Presidential Proclamation 10,949 suspended entry of nationals from 19 countries, including Iran, and Presidential Proclamation 10,998 expanded the restrictions to 39 countries while carrying forward an exception tied to whether an individual held a valid visa as of the relevant effective date.
That effective-date carve-out became central to the government’s argument that the 17 could enter even under the new framework. The Justice Department told the appeals court those plaintiffs held “valid visa[s] on the applicable effective date” of the newer proclamation, placing them outside the entry bar as continued and supplemented.
The narrow clearance for a small group also intersects with a recurring litigation dynamic in travel-ban cases: when the government resolves the immediate injury for named plaintiffs, it can narrow what a court can still remedy. Legal analysts have described that approach as a bid to moot parts of a case, though the filing itself addressed the question through the proclamations’ terms rather than a broad concession on policy.
In practical terms, a case can become moot when the specific harm alleged no longer exists, leaving a court with less to decide about relief for the people who sued. In cases challenging entry restrictions, allowing a plaintiff to travel or clearing an exception for that person can reduce the scope of live disputes over entry, even if broader policy questions remain contested.
The proclamations cited in the case draw on Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which the administration has used as the statutory mechanism for broad entry restrictions. The January 23 filing positioned the 17-person clearance as an application of the proclamations’ exceptions rather than an abandonment of the proclamations themselves.
Even with entry clarified for those 17 individuals, the case record also highlights how other policy levers can slow immigration benefits for people affected by the expanded proclamation list. A USCIS “hold and review” policy remains in effect for pending benefit applications, creating a separate bottleneck from State Department visa issuance and from U.S. Customs and Border Protection decisions at ports of entry.
The USCIS policy appears in a USCIS Policy Memorandum, PM-602-0194, issued by the Office of the Director. It instructs personnel to “Place a hold on all pending benefit applications for aliens listed in Presidential Proclamation 10998. pending a comprehensive review, regardless of entry date.”
That instruction, as described in the memo, targets pending benefits rather than the act of travel itself. It can affect people already in the United States who seek work permits, green card adjustments, or other immigration benefits, and it can apply even when someone believes they qualify for an exception on the entry side.
The hold policy also differs from the State Department’s handling of immigrant visa processing abroad, and from CBP’s role at the border. State Department pauses can halt the issuance pipeline before a visa exists, while CBP inspections determine admission for travelers with valid documents; a USCIS hold, by contrast, can stall adjudication of benefit applications that do not depend on immediate travel.
For many applicants, those distinctions matter because a single exception that permits travel does not necessarily unblock every immigration step tied to lawful status or long-term residency. The litigation record points to a layered system in which proclamations govern entry, consulates control issuance, and USCIS controls benefits.
Outside the courtroom, the administration’s travel restrictions have coincided with broader limits on immigrant visa processing. The State Department announced on January 14, 2026 a “Pause on Immigrant Visa Processing” affecting immigrant visa processing for numerous countries, a move that the case record described as continuing to block thousands of other applicants.
The clearance for 17 plaintiffs therefore stands as a highly specific development tied to named individuals in a particular lawsuit, not a signal that consulates broadly resumed issuing immigrant visas to affected nationals. Applicants who lack visas, or whose cases remain pending at posts abroad, can remain unable to complete processing or to travel under the continuing restrictions and related administrative actions.
The effects ripple across multiple immigrant categories mentioned in the case context, including families waiting for reunification, employment-based immigrants, and Diversity Visa applicants whose eligibility can depend on completing processing within strict fiscal-year windows. The record did not quantify the number of Diversity Visa applicants affected beyond the plaintiffs, but it framed the impact as large and ongoing.
The government’s January 23 position also draws a line between two groups that can look similar on paper: people who already possess issued visas and people who are still seeking adjudication. For the 17 Iranian visa holders, the Justice Department’s filing addressed entry, not the upstream decision to issue visas or the broader pause mechanisms.
Those distinctions also shape what remains for courts to decide. Sooknanan’s decision to grant the Cross-Motion to Dismiss and deny additional emergency relief ended proceedings in the district court, but the filing to the D.C. Circuit underscored that the appeal still concerns the preliminary injunction “that is on appeal,” including the consequences of the government’s evolving position on who can enter.
The case’s posture also highlights how different agencies’ actions can intersect in a single immigrant’s path. The State Department’s visa issuance decisions, USCIS adjudication of benefits, and CBP entry decisions can each present separate hurdles, even when a court order or a proclamation exception appears to resolve one part of the problem.
For readers seeking to confirm how these policies apply, the case record points to a small number of official documents that anchor the dispute: USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194, the Justice Department’s January 23, 2026 filing in Thein v. Trump, and State Department actions affecting visa issuance and processing.
USCIS published PM-602-0194 as a public memorandum, and readers can consult the document directly at USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194. The Justice Department filing appears in Thein v. Trump on PACER as Case No. 1:25-cv-02369.
The State Department posted its suspension notice online at suspension of visa issuance to foreign nationals. For applicants trying to determine whether they can travel or whether a pending benefit may be held, the record also underscores the importance of relying on official case status systems and port-of-entry guidance rather than summaries circulating on social media.
Trump Administration Allows 17 Iranian Visa Holders in Thein V. Trump Moot Move
The U.S. government has allowed 17 Iranian plaintiffs from the Thein v. Trump lawsuit to enter the country, citing a specific exception in Presidential Proclamations for those with valid visas on certain dates. While this resolves the immediate entry issue for these individuals, the broader litigation continues. Meanwhile, a USCIS ‘hold’ policy and State Department pauses continue to restrict visa processing for thousands of other applicants from 39 countries.
