United States | Federal court vacates 75-country immigrant visa issuance suspension

On Aug. 21, 2026, in Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), et al. v. Rubio, a federal district court vacated the State Department policy requiring consular officers to pause issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 designated countries, ruling that “the Policy is contrary to law and was issued in excess of Secretary Rubio’s statutory authority.”

Key takeaways:

The immigrant visa issuance suspension policy violated the INA. The policy, announced Jan. 14 and effective Jan. 21, 2026, directed consular officers to pause issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries if no other ground of ineligibility applied. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that the policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) prohibition on nationality discrimination in immigrant visa issuance.

Under the APA, the policy exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority. The court held that under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Congress reserved decisions on granting or refusing visas for consular officers and excluded those decisions from the secretary’s administrative authority.

Visa refusals based solely on the suspension policy are to be set aside and remanded. The court directed consular officers to reconsider those applications without relying on the vacated policy, stating, “In remanding these applications for adjudication by the consular officers, the Court does not direct any particular outcome or process so long as any refusal is not based upon the Policy.” The order does not disturb refusals based on other statutory grounds of ineligibility, even if the suspension policy was also cited. The ruling does not guarantee visa issuance, and consular officers retain authority to determine eligibility under applicable law.

Additional information: Separate presidential actions regarding travel restrictions or proclamations for certain countries are not part of this case and remain in force, unless impacted by other court orders.

The government may appeal the decision, and yesterday plaintiffs asked the court to enforce its judgment. BAL is monitoring the litigation and will provide updates. BAL clients are encouraged to work closely with their BAL teams to assess case-specific next steps.

This alert has been provided by the BAL U.S. Practice Group.

Copyright © 2026 Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP. All rights reserved. Reprinting or digital redistribution to the public is permitted only with the express written permission of Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP. For inquiries, please contact copyright@bal.com.