A federal judge in Washington, DC has ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully blocked immigrant visas for applicants from 75 countries and they should be singled out for public charge rules. The policy, which took effect on January 21, 2026, stopped immigrant visa issuance for citizens of countries including Russia, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Brazil, Colombia, Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan, and many others.

The government claimed that people from these countries might become dependent on public benefits in the United States. However, immigration law requires consular officers to examine each applicant separately. Officers must consider the person’s age, health, income, education, work skills, financial resources, family circumstances, and affidavit of support. The government cannot automatically treat every person from an entire country as a public-charge risk.

The case, De Moura Gomes v. Rubio, involved a Brazilian visa applicant. The State Department placed the family’s case on hold because Brazil was included in the 75-country freeze. Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled that the Secretary of State had exceeded his legal authority by directing consular officers to refuse applications based on the applicant’s nationality instead of reviewing each case individually.

The judge ordered the State Department to reconsider the plaintiff’s family’s visa applications without using the unlawful blanket policy. However, the ruling does not immediately reopen every immigrant visa case from the 75 affected countries. It applies directly to the family that filed the lawsuit. Separate lawsuits are seeking broader court orders that could require the government to end the policy for everyone.

Does This Mean Everyone’s Applications Will Be Unfrozen From The 75 Banned Counries?

No—not for everyone.

The ruling immediately unfroze only the immigrant visa applications of Newton De Moura Gomes and his family, who were the plaintiffs in the case. The judge ordered the State Department to reconsider their applications individually and prohibited the government from applying the 75-country policy to them.

The judge did declare that the overall 75-country policy is unlawful, which is important and may help other applicants challenge the freeze. However:

The plaintiffs specifically requested relief only for their family.
The court did not vacate the policy nationwide.
The court did not order every embassy to resume issuing immigrant visas to nationals of the 75 countries.

As of August 6, 2026, the State Department’s official website still states that immigrant visa issuance for nationals of the 75 countries is paused. Applicants may continue filing applications and attending interviews, but their visas may still be held or refused under INA § 221(g). (Travel.state.gov)

A separate case, CLINIC v. Rubio, seeks broader relief that would lift the freeze for all affected applicants. That case remains important because a nationwide order there could truly unfreeze immigrant visa processing for everyone covered by the policy. (NILC)

Therefore, the court declared the 75-country immigrant visa freeze unlawful, but the decision currently provides direct relief only to the family that filed the lawsuit. Other applicants remain subject to the freeze unless the State Department changes its policy or another court issues broader relief.

The court ruled that the 75-country policy was unlawful, but it did not rule that the policy was discriminatory.

The so-called visa ban and the Public Charge Policy were essentially the same policy: the State Department ordered consular officers to refuse immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries while it reviewed public-charge screening rules. Even applicants whom officers determined were not likely to become public charges still had to receive a refusal under INA § 221(g).

Judge Mehta found the policy unlawful for two statutory reasons:

The Secretary of State exceeded his authority. The INA gives consular officers—not the Secretary—the authority to decide whether to issue or refuse an individual visa.
The policy eliminated individualized public-charge decisions. The INA requires the consular officer to evaluate each applicant’s age, health, family circumstances, finances, education, and skills. The State Department instead ordered the same result—refusal—for every covered applicant, regardless of the person’s circumstances.

The court ruled that the blanket 75-country public-charge visa freeze was unlawful because it replaced the individualized review required by Congress with automatic refusals based on nationality. The court did not decide whether the policy also constituted unlawful discrimination.

The separate CLINIC v. Rubio lawsuit does expressly argue that the policy is discriminatory, unconstitutional, and motivated by nationality-based bias, but those claims were still pending as of August 6, 2026.

Importantly, the decision does not eliminate the public-charge ground of inadmissibility. Consular officers may still deny an individual applicant as likely to become a public charge after conducting the legally required case-by-case assessment. The court simply held that the government cannot deny based on the public charge inference just because someone is a citizen of one of the 75 banned countries.

Applicants should continue attending immigrant visa interviews, submitting requested documents, and keeping copies of all refusal notices and embassy communications. People whose cases remain frozen after an interview may have legal options, particularly when the delay causes prolonged family separation, employment problems, an approaching child age-out deadline, or another serious hardship.

Contact Shepelsky Law Group by calling Tel: (718)769-6352 to schedule a paid consultation about your immigrant visa case.