The State Department issued only 318 Visa Approvals under the 75-Country Pause, a January suspension of immigrant visa issuance that a federal judge later struck down. The department’s notice says the pause was no longer in effect as of August 21, 2026.
Background: Federal Court Order Ends 75-Country Immigrant Visa Pause, State Dept. Confirms
Thousands of applicants remain abroad. A September court filing said 43,000 applications were subject to the court order and that the department had begun reprocessing cases.
The court ended the blanket restriction, not the wait. Applicants whose cases were underway, including some with approved visas that had not been issued, may still face more review.
The government has appealed. The department has cited litigation in declining to discuss individual cases.
| India | China | ROW | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EB-1 | Feb 01, 2023 | Aug 01, 2023 ▲31d | Current |
| EB-2 | Nov 01, 2013 | Oct 01, 2021 | Apr 01, 2025 ▲90d |
| EB-3 | Jan 22, 2014 ▲21d | Jan 22, 2022 ▲14d | Jun 15, 2024 ▲31d |
| F-1 | Jan 22, 2021 ▲366d | Jan 22, 2021 ▲366d | Jan 22, 2021 ▲366d |
| F-2A | Oct 22, 2026 ▲30d | Oct 22, 2026 ▲30d | Oct 22, 2026 ▲30d |
Immigrant visa applicants can proceed, but approval is not guaranteed
The former restriction covered immigrant visa applicants from the named countries, not visitors seeking tourist visas. The department says applicants may submit visa applications and attend interviews, and that it will continue scheduling them.
Individual review remains. Applicants may be asked for more evidence or face delays in interviews and final visa issuance; the court’s decision does not promise approval or immediate processing.
The January suspension covered immigrant applicants from 75 countries
The department announced the suspension on January 14, 2026, and made it effective January 21, 2026. It applied to nationals of Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan and Yemen.
The administration justified the policy by saying immigrants from those countries posed a heightened risk of becoming a “public charge” and relying on government benefits. Consular officers could still interview applicants and review eligibility.
But officers were directed to refuse an otherwise eligible application under INA § 221(g) solely because of nationality, if no other inadmissibility ground applied. The rule also exempted dual nationals applying with a valid passport from a country outside the list.
Children being adopted by Americans could qualify for an exception, including a National Interest Exception under Presidential Proclamation 10998. Their families were instructed to continue the usual adoption process, submit visa applications and attend interviews; no extra step was required for consideration of a case-by-case exception. The guidance revoked no immigrant visas.
Judge Vargas struck down the policy and the government appealed
U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, No. 1:26-cv-00858 (S.D.N.Y.). She called the policy “patently unlawful” and beyond Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statutory authority.
The court found that the policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by discriminating on nationality. It also concluded that the restriction exceeded the secretary’s authority and interfered with consular officers’ role in deciding cases individually.
Vargas vacated the policy and set aside refusals based solely on it. The ruling restores individualized adjudication, but does not remove all country-based immigration restrictions or guarantee a visa. The administration appealed.
Consular training and canceled interviews continue to slow cases
On August 31, 2026, the judge asked the government what it was doing to process applications halted in January. In a September 9 filing, the department said it had taken steps to restart processing and that 43,000 applications were covered by the order.
The department also said it had paused visa processing for an in-depth training program for embassy and consular staff on identifying applicants who could become a public charge. Interviews were canceled at consulates around the world to accommodate the training. The department had not publicly updated the public-charge section of the Foreign Affairs Manual.
Alexis Axelrad, president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the end of the ban has not removed practical barriers to interviews and visa issuance.
“So while technically the ban doesn't exist, it doesn't matter practically if people are still not being able to get their green card interviews or have their interviews not be finished and not get their immigrant visa stamps foils and be able to come into the United States”
A former State Department consular officer, who asked not to be identified because she feared the effect on her job prospects, described the pause as unprecedented in her experience. She said the department was following a presidential policy aimed “to reduce illegal immigration, remigrate people and only accept refugees from South Africa.”
Applicants and families remain caught in the processing backlog
More than 280,000 immigrants had applied for visas from the affected countries by the time the suspension took effect. The Cato Institute said the policy reached thousands of close relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, including spouses and minor children. The group called it “one of the most extreme legal immigration policies in U.S. history.”
Dustin Hoffman, an Iraq War U.S. Army veteran, began visa paperwork late last year for his wife, Gloria. They lived in Argentina with their 5-year-old daughter, Chaya, and Hoffman’s 12-year-old stepson, Israel. Gloria is from Colombia, one of the countries covered by the suspension.
Hoffman moved to Houston on January 1 to prepare a home for the family. Gloria and the children remained in Argentina, while the department continued asking for evidence that the family could support itself in the United States without becoming a public charge.
Hoffman said congressional inquiries repeatedly produced the same response: Gloria’s visa could not be approved because she was from a country covered by the pause. He said his daughter cries “all the time” and asks for her father, and that his wife is overwhelmed.
Dr. Fernando Lizcano, a Colombian biomedical researcher approved for an EB-1A visa for extraordinary ability, was still in Bogotá waiting for the department’s final stamp in his passport.
The case began with lawsuits over the executive branch's authority
U.S. citizens, nonprofits and foreign workers sued the Trump administration on February 2, 2026, arguing that the executive branch could not rewrite federal immigration law through the suspension. On March 11, nonprofit groups, U.S. citizens and foreign workers asked a New York federal judge to overturn the policy as unlawful overreach.
The department declined to discuss individual cases, citing pending litigation. Its notice says immigrant visa applications must be assessed on an individualized basis rather than refused because of nationality alone.
