A federal judge has struck down the State Department policy that halted immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries. The August 21, 2026 decision in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio removes a major barrier for families and employment-based applicants who had otherwise qualified for immigrant visas but were refused solely because of their nationality.

The ruling is significant, but it does not mean that every affected case will be approved immediately. It restores individualized visa adjudication. Applicants must still satisfy all statutory and regulatory requirements, and separate restrictions may continue to apply.

What Was the 75-Country Policy?

Effective January 21, 2026, the Department of State suspended immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 designated countries while it reviewed screening and vetting policies related to the “public charge” ground of inadmissibility. The affected countries included Brazil, Colombia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Russia, Jamaica, Nigeria, and many countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.

Under the policy, a consular officer could determine that an applicant was otherwise eligible for an immigrant visa and still refuse issuance based solely on the applicant’s nationality. The suspension affected both family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visa applicants processing through U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.

Several nonprofit organizations, affected applicants, and U.S. citizen sponsors challenged the policy in federal court.

What Did the Court Decide?

U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York concluded that the nationality-based suspension exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The court emphasized two features of the statutory framework. First, consular officers—not the Secretary of State—are charged with deciding whether an individual immigrant visa applicant is eligible under the law. Second, Section 202(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act generally prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas because of a person’s nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

The court vacated the policy and set aside immigrant visa refusals that were based solely on the 75-country suspension. As a result, the State Department must return to case-by-case adjudication rather than deny an otherwise eligible applicant merely because the applicant is a national of one of the designated countries.

What the Ruling Means in Practice

For an applicant whose immigrant visa was refused only under the 75-country policy, the decision may create a path for the case to be reconsidered. Applicants should not assume, however, that a consulate will reopen or approve a case automatically. The Department of State must first implement the ruling, and the government may seek appellate review or a stay.

The decision also does not eliminate the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Consular officers may continue to evaluate whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge based on the governing law and the applicant’s individual circumstances. Affidavits of support, household income, assets, job offers, health coverage, and other financial evidence may therefore remain important, depending on the immigrant visa category and the facts of the case.

For employment-based cases, employers and sponsored workers should confirm whether a refusal was based solely on the now-vacated policy or whether the consular officer identified an additional ground of inadmissibility or administrative processing. A refusal supported by another independent legal ground was not necessarily set aside by the court’s order.

Recommended Next Steps

Applicants, sponsoring family members, and employers with affected cases should consider the following:

1. Review the refusal record. Locate the refusal letter, CEAC status, consular correspondence, and any reference to the 75-country policy or the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
2. Confirm whether another restriction applies. Nationality-based restrictions under Presidential Proclamation 10998, administrative processing, documentary deficiencies, or a separate inadmissibility finding may still prevent issuance.
3. Keep financial evidence current. Updated employment letters, tax records, affidavits of support, proof of assets, and other evidence may be requested when adjudication resumes.
4. Watch for post-specific instructions. Consulates may differ in how and when they reopen or reconsider affected cases. Avoid submitting duplicate applications or paying new fees unless instructed.
5. Get case-specific advice before acting. The right strategy may depend on the refusal code, visa category, priority date, country of chargeability, and whether the government appeals or obtains a stay.

The Bottom Line

The court’s decision removes the State Department’s blanket nationality-based bar and restores the individualized adjudication required by federal immigration law. That is meaningful relief for many families and workers whose immigrant visa cases were stopped by the 75-country policy.

Even so, the ruling is not an automatic visa approval, and its practical effect will depend on implementation by the Department of State and any further court proceedings. Applicants and employers should review affected cases promptly, preserve all consular records, and obtain individualized guidance before taking the next step.

Because implementation will unfold over the coming weeks and each case presents its own facts, individuals and employers with cases affected by the 75-country policy should seek guidance from qualified immigration counsel to understand how the ruling applies to their specific circumstances.

By: Adena Bowman

Adena Bowman is a Senior Associate Attorney at Reddy Neumann Brown PC with over 12 years of experience in U.S. immigration law. She helps clients ranging from small businesses to large multinational corporations bring workers to the U.S. and stay compliant with immigration regulations. She also guides individual clients through employment, investment, and family-based immigration matters. Clients rely on her for clear guidance, strategic planning, and personalized support in navigating complex immigration challenges.

Over the course of her career, Adena has advised clients on a wide range of immigration matters, including temporary work visas, investment visas, permanent residency, and naturalization. She consistently delivers thoughtful legal solutions tailored to each client’s unique needs. She stays closely attuned to changes in immigration policy and works proactively to protect her clients’ goals and timelines.