As of October 21, 2026, the State Department's 75-country immigrant visa pause lifted by a federal court remains off: the court vacated it on August 21, 2026, and the department has told consular posts it is no longer in effect (Opinion and Order, CLINIC v. Rubio, S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2026) (State Department cable 26 STATE 88862, Sept. 10, 2026). The government has appealed. On October 19, 2026, a Second Circuit judge refused to pause the vacatur itself but temporarily stayed the part of the judgment that set aside individual refusals, pending review by a three-judge panel (Second Circuit order, No. 26-2573, Oct. 19, 2026).
So, with the immigrant visa pause lifted for new decisions, people already refused under it are in a less settled position. This post explains what the policy did, what the courts have ordered, and who it touches.
- The State Department announced on January 14, 2026 that it would pause immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries from January 21, 2026.
- On August 21, 2026, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas (S.D.N.Y.) vacated the policy in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, No. 26-cv-00858.
- A September 10, 2026 State Department cable (26 STATE 88862) told all posts the pause is no longer in effect and that no applicant may be refused under INA 221(g) for it.
- The government says more than 43,000 immigrant visa applications were refused solely under the pause.
- On October 19, 2026, a Second Circuit judge denied a temporary stay of the vacatur but temporarily stayed the part of the judgment setting aside individual refusals.
- India and China were not on the 75-country list; the separate 212(f) entry restrictions in Proclamation 10998 are unaffected by this ruling.
What was the 75-country immigrant visa pause?
On January 14, 2026, the State Department announced that, effective January 21, 2026, it would suspend immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries it considered at high risk of public charge (Opinion and Order, Aug. 21, 2026, p. 1). The announcement read:
"Effective January 21, 2026, the Department of State is pausing all visa issuances to immigrant visa applicants who are nationals of the following countries." Department of State announcement of January 14, 2026, as quoted in CLINIC v. Rubio, Opinion and Order at 8
The same day, a cable to all posts told consular officers to refuse covered applicants under INA section 221(g) even where the officer had found the applicant was not likely to become a public charge and was otherwise eligible (Opinion and Order, pp. 1 to 2 and 8 to 10). Officers were also told to reopen and refuse cases already approved where the printed visa had not yet left the consulate (Opinion and Order, p. 10). The court described the policy as barring immigrant visas for nationals of nearly 40% of the world's countries (Opinion and Order, p. 2).
Which countries were on the list?
The court's opinion lists the 75 countries named in the announcement: 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 (Opinion and Order, p. 8, n. 1).
India and China are not on that list (Opinion and Order, p. 8, n. 1). The cable was framed around applicants who are "nationals" of the listed countries (Opinion and Order, p. 9). That is a different idea from country of chargeability, which sets your place in the visa bulletin queue, so ask your attorney how it applied to you if you hold more than one nationality.
Employment-based applicants were caught too. Five of the 11 individual plaintiffs had filed employment-based petitions on their own behalf (Opinion and Order, p. 12).
Why was the immigrant visa pause lifted in CLINIC v. Rubio?
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York held that the policy was contrary to law and exceeded the Secretary of State's statutory authority, and vacated it under the Administrative Procedure Act (Opinion and Order, p. 2). The case is Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, No. 1:26-cv-00858, filed February 2, 2026 (Complaint, ECF No. 1, filed Feb. 2, 2026).
The central statute was the Immigration and Nationality Act's ban on nationality discrimination in immigrant visa issuance:
"no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A), as quoted in CLINIC v. Rubio, Opinion and Order at 7
The court found the policy regulated visa issuance, not entry, so the Supreme Court's reasoning in Trump v. Hawaii did not save it (Opinion and Order, p. 37). The Rule 54(b) judgment, entered August 24, 2026, vacated the policy, set aside refusals based solely on it and remanded them, and declared that the policy violated 8 U.S.C. 1201(g), 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A) and 22 CFR 40.6 and exceeded the Secretary's authority under 8 U.S.C. 1104(a) (Rule 54(b) Judgment, Aug. 24, 2026).
The vacatur does not reach refusals on any other ground, even if the refusal notice also cited the policy (Opinion and Order, p. 57).
What did the State Department do after the ruling?
On September 10, 2026, the department sent cable 26 STATE 88862 to all diplomatic and consular posts. It rescinded the January guidance and told posts that no applicant may be refused under INA 221(g) for the pause (26 STATE 88862, para. 2). Officers reconsidering cases were told to enter this note:
"As of August 21, 2026, in accordance with the Court's order in CLINIC et al. v. Rubio, et al., the January 2026 pause of immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries is no longer in effect." State Department cable 26 STATE 88862 (Sept. 10, 2026), para. 7
The cable told posts to review cases refused solely under the pause in the order they were refused, to request missing documents such as updated medical exams, and encouraged in-person reinterviews (26 STATE 88862, para. 6). It also requires officers in all immigrant visa cases to complete a public charge worksheet (26 STATE 88862, para. 6).
The government told the court that more than 43,000 immigrant visa applications are subject to the vacatur and remand order (Defendants' Status Report, Sept. 8, 2026, para. 1). It reported that from August 21 through September 30, officers adjudicated about 706 applications where the policy had been at least one ground for refusal; about 318 were approved or issued and about 388 were refused under the INA (Defendants' Response to Order to Show Cause, Oct. 5, 2026, p. 9). The government noted those figures include some cases outside the narrower group refused solely under the policy (same, p. 9).
Is the government appealing, and what did the Second Circuit do?
Yes. The government filed a notice of appeal on September 10, 2026 (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 98). Judge Vargas denied a stay pending appeal on September 25, 2026 (Opinion and Order denying stay, Sept. 25, 2026). The government then filed an emergency motion in the Second Circuit for a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay on September 28, 2026 (Emergency Motion for Stay, No. 26-2573, Sept. 28, 2026).
On October 19, 2026, Circuit Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied a temporary stay of the declaratory judgment and of the vacatur of the policy, but granted it as to the part of the judgment vacating and remanding individual refusals (Second Circuit order, Oct. 19, 2026):
"The government's motion for a temporary stay is GRANTED as to the district court's judgment purporting to vacate and remand "any refusal of an immigrant visa that was based solely upon the policy."" Second Circuit, No. 26-2573, Order of October 19, 2026
The motion was referred to a three-judge panel (same order). The government then asked the district court to defer consideration of the plaintiffs' proposed enforcement order (Defendants' notice, Oct. 19, 2026). On October 20, Judge Vargas allowed the government to file a reply and directed that it explain, by 5:00 pm on October 23, 2026, whether applications refused because of the policy between January 14 and August 21, 2026 will undergo additional processing or reprocessing now that the policy is no longer in effect (Order, Oct. 20, 2026).
Where does everything stand on October 21, 2026?
| Item | Document | Status on October 21, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Vacatur of the 75-country policy | Judgment, Aug. 24, 2026 | In force; temporary stay denied Oct. 19 |
| Declaratory judgment | Judgment, Aug. 24, 2026 | In force; temporary stay denied Oct. 19 |
| Set-aside and remand of individual refusals | Judgment, Aug. 24, 2026 | Temporarily stayed Oct. 19, pending three-judge panel |
| Government's stay motion | 2d Cir. No. 26-2573 | Pending before a three-judge panel |
| Government's appeal | 2d Cir. No. 26-2573 | Pending |
| Enforcement in district court | S.D.N.Y. order, Oct. 20 | Government reply due Oct. 23 |
| Proclamation 10998 entry restrictions | 90 FR 59717 | Separate; not addressed by this ruling |
Sources for the table: the judgment (Rule 54(b) Judgment), the notice of appeal (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 98), the Second Circuit order (Order, Oct. 19, 2026), the district court's October 20 order (Order) and the proclamation (Proclamation 10998, 90 FR 59717).
Is this the same as the travel ban or the USCIS holds?
No. Proclamation 10998, signed December 16, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, restricts entry of nationals of listed countries under INA 212(f) (Proclamation 10998, secs. 2 to 5 and 10). The State Department's cable says applicants ineligible under 212(f) because of Proclamation 10998 need no extra processing beyond lifting the pause refusal, so they stay ineligible (26 STATE 88862, para. 8).
USCIS's January 1, 2026 hold memo for adjustment and other benefit applications, PM-602-0194, was tied to the Proclamation 10998 countries, not the 75-country list, and now carries a notice that it is no longer in effect due to court orders (USCIS PM-602-0194). The 75-country pause itself was a cable to consular officers about immigrant visas abroad, not a rule for adjustment of status through USCIS (Opinion and Order, p. 1).
What this means for you
If you are a national of a listed country and still waiting for your consular interview, the policy no longer stands in your way. Your case is decided on the ordinary grounds, including public charge (26 STATE 88862, paras. 2 and 8).
If you were refused under 221(g) because of the pause, the cable's approved message for applicants says the consular section will contact those refused solely under the pause for further processing (26 STATE 88862, para. 11). After the October 19 stay, whether that reprocessing continues is the question the district court has put to the government (Order, Oct. 20, 2026).
For everyone consular processing, from any country, the bar has also moved. The government says a public charge worksheet was deployed globally under guidance issued August 15, 2026, and new training requirements, including expanded managerial review, were formally deployed on September 1, 2026 for immigrant visa adjudications worldwide (Defendants' Status Report, Sept. 8, 2026, para. 6). If your petition is approved and you are choosing between consular processing and adjustment, read what happens after your I-140 is approved and watch the October 2026 Visa Bulletin.
- Check whether your nationality was on the list, and whether a refusal notice cited only the pause.
- Keep medical exams, police certificates and financial evidence current; the cable says updated medicals may be requested (26 STATE 88862, para. 6).
- Prepare a clear public charge record: income, assets and a qualifying affidavit of support where one is required (Opinion and Order, p. 7, quoting 9 FAM 302.8-2(B)(3)).
- Check separately whether Proclamation 10998 applies to your nationality.
- Ask your attorney before traveling for an interview while the appeal is pending.
Where to start
If you are early in the process, the free evaluation at /evaluate/ shows which green card routes fit your profile, and Frank finds concrete opportunities for criteria you are still missing. When you are ready to file, petitions are reviewed and filed by our partner law firm, Lai & Turner.
Sources
All checked October 21, 2026.
- Opinion and Order, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, No. 26-cv-00858 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 83 (August 21, 2026). The policy, country list, holding, scope of vacatur and plaintiffs.
- Rule 54(b) Judgment, ECF No. 84 (August 24, 2026). Vacatur, set-aside and remand of refusals, declaratory judgment.
- State Department cable 26 STATE 88862, filed as ECF No. 107-4 (September 10, 2026). Rescission of the pause, reconsideration steps, case note language, Proclamation 10998 carve-out.
- Defendants' Status Report, ECF No. 96 (September 8, 2026). More than 43,000 affected applications; public charge worksheet and training requirements.
- Opinion and Order denying stay pending appeal, ECF No. 109 (September 25, 2026). District court's denial of a stay.
- Defendants' Response to Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 114 (October 5, 2026). Adjudication figures through September 30.
- Defendants' Notice of Second Circuit Stay Order, ECF No. 126 (October 19, 2026). Government's request to defer enforcement.
- Order, ECF No. 129 (October 20, 2026). Reply due October 23 on reprocessing of refused applications.
- Complaint, ECF No. 1 (filed February 2, 2026). Filing date.
- Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 98 (September 10, 2026). Government's appeal to the Second Circuit.
- Second Circuit order, No. 26-2573 (October 19, 2026). Partial temporary stay and referral to a three-judge panel.
- Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Immediate Administrative Stay, No. 26-2573 (2d Cir.), Dkt. 21 (September 28, 2026). Date of the government's stay motion.
- Proclamation 10998, 90 FR 59717 (December 19, 2025). Separate 212(f) entry restrictions and effective date.
- USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194 (January 1, 2026). USCIS hold tied to Proclamation 10998; marked no longer in effect.
Frequently asked questions
Is the 75-country immigrant visa pause still in effect?
No. A federal judge in the Southern District of New York vacated the policy on August 21, 2026, and the State Department told every consular post on September 10, 2026 that the pause is no longer in effect. On October 19, 2026, a Second Circuit judge refused to temporarily stay that vacatur while a three-judge panel considers the government's stay motion, so the pause remains off for now.
What happens to people who were already refused under the pause?
The district court set aside refusals based solely on the pause and sent them back to consular officers, and the State Department began reviewing them in the order they were refused. On October 19, 2026, the Second Circuit temporarily stayed that part of the judgment. The district court has asked the government to explain by October 23, 2026 whether those cases will still be reprocessed.
Were India or China on the 75-country list?
No. The 75 countries listed in the January 14, 2026 announcement, as reproduced in the court's opinion, do not include India or China. They include, for example, Brazil, Colombia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Nigeria, Russia, Iran and Thailand. Those nationals were the ones whose immigrant visas could be refused under the pause.
Did the pause affect H-1B, O-1 or other temporary visas?
No. The January 14, 2026 announcement and cable, as described by the court, paused issuance of immigrant visas only, meaning visas for people moving to the US permanently. Nonimmigrant visas such as H-1B and O-1 were not covered. Separate presidential entry restrictions under Proclamation 10998 can affect some nonimmigrant visas for certain nationalities, and this ruling did not touch them.
Does the ruling end the separate travel ban under Proclamation 10998?
No. Proclamation 10998, signed December 16, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, restricts entry of nationals of certain countries under INA 212(f). It is a different legal instrument from the 75-country pause. The State Department's September 10, 2026 cable says applicants ineligible under 212(f) because of Proclamation 10998 need no extra processing beyond lifting the pause refusal, meaning they remain ineligible.
Green Card Guide AI is not a law firm and this article is not legal advice. It describes evidence-building strategy in general terms; your attorney determines what belongs in your petition and how it's argued.
