- Judge Amit Mehta blocked a blanket visa refusal policy affecting Newton De Moura Gomes and other named plaintiffs.
- The court found the policy unlawfully bypassed individualized public-charge determinations for nationals of seventy-five countries.
- The State Department must re-adjudicate the application within sixty days of completion but can still request more evidence.
Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia barred the State Department from applying its blanket immigrant-visa refusal policy to Newton De Moura Gomes’s application on July 31, 2026. The De Moura Gomes ruling requires the government to reconsider the case individually under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The case involves an EB-5 investor visa. The court found that a policy taking effect on January 21, 2026, unlawfully directed consular officers to refuse immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries without individualized public-charge determinations.
Free toolCSPA Age-Out Calculator Online
The order gives Gomes and the other named plaintiffs a path back into case-by-case review. It does not reopen every pending application tied to the policy.
The government must re-adjudicate the plaintiffs’ application no later than 60 days after a consular officer deems it complete. The order does not require immediate visa issuance.
The State Department can still ask for additional evidence. It can also deny the application on another lawful, individualized ground.
Pending EB-5 and family-based immigrant visa cases from the affected countries therefore do not automatically receive the same relief. A separate order would be needed to extend the benefit beyond the named plaintiffs in De Moura Gomes v. Rubio.
The order blocks a blanket refusal, not every public-charge denial
The court declared the State Department’s policy unlawful and prohibited its use against Gomes’s application. The decision does not eliminate the public-charge ground of inadmissibility.
Instead, consular officers must assess each application under the INA rather than follow a blanket refusal directive. That distinction gives applicants facing similar refusals a stronger basis to challenge the policy, while preserving individualized review.
| Question | Effect of the order |
|---|---|
| Who receives direct relief? | The named plaintiffs in De Moura Gomes v. Rubio |
| Which application was at issue? | Newton De Moura Gomes’s EB-5 investor visa application |
| When must re-adjudication occur? | No later than 60 days after a consular officer deems the application complete |
| Does the order require approval? | No. The government may request evidence or deny the case on another lawful, individualized ground |
| Does it cover all affected cases? | No, not without a separate order extending relief |
The ruling is particularly relevant to applicants whose cases remain in consular processing under the 75-country policy. It confirms that the agency must make individualized decisions instead of applying the refusal instruction automatically.
Appeals could determine whether relief expands
The decision is final and appealable. The government may seek review in the D.C. Circuit or request a stay.
Until a later order broadens the relief, applicants with pending EB-5 or family immigrant visa cases should expect case-by-case handling rather than automatic approval. The ruling changes the legal footing for challenges, but it does not itself decide those applications.
The 60-day clock begins only after a consular officer determines that the plaintiffs’ application is complete. That procedural trigger will govern when the ordered re-adjudication must occur.
