75-Country Immigrant Visa Pause Lifted: What It Means and What to Do in 2026

The immigrant visa pause for 75 countries is no longer in effect: on August 21, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in CLINIC v. Rubio held the State Department's policy unlawful and vacated it for all applicants. The State Department confirmed that the pause is "no longer in effect," and consulates are re-reviewing more than 43,000 221(g) refusals, starting with the oldest. The government, however, is appealing to the Second Circuit; according to available information as of October 19, 2026, the appeals court has not ruled on the stay motion, and the district court has not yet set a deadline for re-reviewing refusals after the October 14 hearing and the parties' filings of October 15–16.

In short:

• The pause applied from January 21, 2026, to immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, including Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova.
• On August 21, 2026, the court vacated the policy in full. Refusals issued solely because of the pause have been sent back to consulates for reconsideration.
• You do not need to file a new DS-260 or pay the fee again. But expect a new public charge review and possibly a new interview.
• The government has appealed. The district court denied a stay, and no Second Circuit ruling was confirmed as of October 19 — the court's decision remains in effect.
• On October 14, a hearing was held on a deadline for re-reviewing the ~43,000 refusals. On October 15, plaintiffs filed a proposed order. The judge moved the government's response deadline up to October 16, and on October 16 the government objected, offering instead two sworn declarations 14 days apart. No court ruling was confirmed as of October 19.
• Ukraine and Tajikistan were not on the 75-country list. Turkmenistan is blocked separately by Proclamation 10998, and the court's decision does not change that.

What the 75-country immigrant visa pause was

The State Department announced the pause on January 14, 2026, and it took effect on January 21. Formally, it was an indefinite suspension of immigrant visa issuance while the agency reviewed how it screens applicants for the risk of becoming a "public charge" — that is, relying on government benefits. It was based on an internal cable published by the AP.

The mechanics were unusual. Consular officers were instructed to conduct the usual individualized public charge assessment under INA 212(a)(4) and then refuse under INA 221(g) anyway — even if the applicant had no ground of inadmissibility. It is important to understand that this was not a proclamation under section 212(f). A different document rests on 212(f) — the entry ban on 39 countries, Proclamation 10998.

Which visas the pause covered

• Covered: only immigrant visas processed abroad through a consulate. These include visas for spouses, parents, and children of U.S. citizens (IR/CR), family preference categories, employment-based categories, the lottery (DV), and other consular immigrant categories.
• Not covered: nonimmigrant visas (B, F, and others) and I-485 green card applications filed inside the United States.
• K-1 fiancé(e) visa: law firms take the view that the pause did not apply to it, because the K-1 is a nonimmigrant visa. We were unable to find State Department text that addresses the K-1 directly, so this point is not officially confirmed.

Exceptions

The State Department's official page listed exceptions for dual nationals holding a valid passport of a country not on the list and for children being adopted by U.S. citizens. The State Department also stated that applicants could still submit documents and attend interviews during the pause, and that previously issued visas were not revoked.

The 75-country list: who the pause affected

The full official list from travel.state.gov:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Myanmar (Burma), Cambodia, Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, DR Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, 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, Yemen.

For Russian-speaking applicants, the country-by-country picture looks like this:

Important: U.S. immigrant visas for Russian nationals are formally being issued in the normal way again in 2026, but where to attend the interview remains a practical question. Since November 1, 2025, the NVC (National Visa Center) schedules interviews in the applicant's country of residence or, on request, in the country of nationality. You can change the consulate through the NVC Public Inquiry Form.

The court struck down the immigrant visa ban: what the judge decided

Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) v. Rubio, No. 1:26-cv-00858-JAV, was filed on February 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs are CLINIC and African Communities Together, along with individual applicants and their U.S. sponsors. The case is before Judge Jeannette A. Vargas.

In its August 21, 2026 decision, the court concluded that:

• the policy is contrary to law and in excess of the agency's statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA);
• it violates INA 202(a)(1)(A) (8 USC 1152(a)(1)(A)), which prohibits nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas;
• it violates INA 221(g) and 22 CFR 40.6, which permit a refusal only on a ground expressly provided by statute or regulation;
• it exceeds the Secretary of State's authority under INA 104(a): the Secretary cannot substitute his own judgment for consular officers' visa decisions.

The judge called the policy "patently unlawful." The government prevailed only on the notice-and-comment claim. One important detail: the court did not strike down the public charge ground of inadmissibility itself — it remains in effect.

What exactly was vacated

The court applied APA vacatur to the entire policy. This means the decision applies to everyone, not just the plaintiffs, although it is not binding precedent for other courts. Refusals issued solely because of the pause were vacated and returned to consular officers. Refusals that rest on an independent ground of inadmissibility remain in force. The court entered a partial final judgment (Rule 54(b)) on August 24.

What happened after the decision: timeline

In the Second Circuit, the government asked for an administrative stay and, as a fallback, a partial stay of only the part of the judgment requiring re-review of refusals. According to available information as of October 19, 2026, there is no ruling on this motion, and no administrative stay has been reported. We were unable to confirm whether the government's reply, due October 15, was filed. The district court's decision remains in effect.

The October 14 hearing concerned whether to set a firm deadline for the government to re-review refusals (under the September 24 order to show cause). It was held in New York with counsel for both sides present, but the minute entry records no ruling. On October 15, plaintiffs proposed an order requiring sworn status reports every Tuesday and Friday starting October 16, production of guidance cables and public charge training materials, and decisions on the individual plaintiffs' visa cases within 30 days after they are documentarily qualified. The government asked for time to respond until 5:00 p.m. on October 19, but the judge denied most of that request and ordered a response by 11:00 a.m. on October 16. In its October 16 response (ECF 125), the government objected to the scope of the proposal and offered instead to submit two sworn declarations 14 days apart. These are the parties' positions, not a court ruling: as of October 19, 2026, no ruling by the judge on the proposed order was confirmed, and no firm deadline for re-reviewing the ~43,000 refusals had been set. The next steps in the district court: plaintiffs' amended complaint is due by October 23, and a proposed motion briefing schedule by November 6. Some claims have not yet been resolved.

Why interviews were canceled even after the court decision

Right after the decision, around August 24–25, the State Department canceled or rescheduled immigrant visa interviews worldwide — for all countries, not just the 75. The stated reason was public charge training for consular officers, which, according to the agency, began in early August.

Reports differ on when this second pause ends. Some sources said it would expire on August 31. Others (Fragomen, Clinch Law) reported that no end date had been announced. On September 8, Reuters reported that processing had resumed only in Hungary and Poland; according to Sumner Immigration on September 22, possibly also in London.

Important: whether normal interview scheduling resumed worldwide in October — in particular in Warsaw, Astana, and Tashkent — was not confirmed at the time of publication (October 19, 2026). Warsaw is one of the main consulates for Russian nationals' cases, but we were unable to confirm whether the resumption in Poland covers those cases specifically.

The September 10 cable: how refusals are being re-reviewed

On September 10, the State Department sent a cable to all consulates. Its key points:

1. The pause is "NO LONGER in effect."
2. Consulates must identify 221(g) refusals issued under the immigrant visa and DV pauses and re-review them starting with the oldest — from January 21.
3. The consulate requests updated documents (for example, a new medical exam) in writing and may invite the applicant to a new interview.
4. A new public charge worksheet is now mandatory in every immigrant visa case.
5. No new application and no new fee are required.

Re-review does not mean automatic approval. Public charge screening has become stricter in 2026: a new DHS final rule took effect on September 18, and instead of refusing under 212(a)(4), a consular officer may require a public charge bond (Form I-945, filed with USCIS) — this is a pilot program, and no fixed amount or country list has been specified. For more on the new criteria, see our article public charge in 2026: the new rule.

221(g) refusal: what to do in your situation

You were refused under 221(g) solely because of the pause

• Do not file a new DS-260 and do not pay fees again — your case has been returned for reconsideration, not closed.
• Keep the 221(g) refusal letter, screenshots of your CEAC status history, and all correspondence with the consulate.
• Make sure your contact details in CEAC and NVC are current and watch your email: the consulate may not copy your attorney.
• Prepare updated documents: medical exam, police certificates, and the sponsor's financial documents (I-864). Expect a new public charge review and possibly a second interview.
• If there is no response for a long time, the next step is a status inquiry to the consulate or NVC. Attorneys also mention a federal lawsuit for unreasonable delay (5 USC 706(1)) — discuss this option with an immigration attorney.

For 221(g) refusals on other grounds, the usual rule applies: you can submit documents within one year without a new fee.

Your interview was canceled in late August

Do not show up at the consulate on the originally scheduled date. Wait for a new appointment and keep your documents up to date.

You have not had your interview yet

You are not among the refusals vacated by the court. Your case simply returns to the regular queue.

You are a national of Turkmenistan

The CLINIC v. Rubio decision does not help you: immigrant visas for nationals of Turkmenistan are blocked by Proclamation 10998, in effect since January 1, 2026. The categorical exceptions for immediate relatives have been removed; for adoptions, a case-by-case National Interest Exception may be available. For more, see our article on which countries face U.S. restrictions in 2026.

Example (hypothetical): an applicant from Kazakhstan applying for a spousal visa as the wife of a U.S. citizen was interviewed in February 2026 and received a 221(g) refusal citing the pause. After the court decision, she does not need to file a new DS-260. Sensible steps are to keep the refusal letter and CEAC screenshots, update her medical exam and police certificates, ask her husband to prepare current I-864 documents, and wait for a letter from the consulate requesting documents or inviting her to a new interview.

Risks: why the situation could change

• A stay in the Second Circuit. If the court grants the government's motion, it could stay the vacatur of the policy in full or only the obligation to re-review refusals — the government's fallback request.
• Reversal on appeal. This outcome is possible.
• Stricter public charge. The new DHS rule, the mandatory worksheet, and a possible bond mean the sponsor's financial documents need more careful preparation.
• Re-review is not approval. The consular officer may refuse on an independent ground.
• Turkmenistan remains blocked by Proclamation 10998 regardless of the outcome of this case.

What to do now

1. Identify your situation: a 221(g) refusal due to the pause, a canceled interview, or a case that has not reached the interview stage.
2. Put the refusal letter, CEAC status history, and consulate correspondence in one folder.
3. Update your contact details in CEAC and NVC and check your email regularly, including spam.
4. Prepare a new medical exam, police certificates, and the sponsor's current I-864 package.
5. Do not file a new DS-260 or pay fees again if your case was refused solely because of the pause.
6. If your interview is scheduled outside your country of residence or you need a different consulate, use the NVC Public Inquiry Form.
7. If the delay drags on, submit a status inquiry and discuss further steps with an immigration attorney.
8. Follow the case in the Second Circuit and the district court: as of October 19, 2026, the situation is still evolving.

How M&M can help

• Preparing documents for re-review. We assemble and check the updated package — sponsor financial documents, translations, certificates — with the stricter public charge review in mind.
• Working with partner attorneys. When an issue calls for legal assessment — a delay, a complex refusal, choice of consulate — we bring in our licensed partner immigration attorneys.
• Alternative pathways. If the consular route is difficult for you, other options can be evaluated, such as EB-1A or EB-2 NIW. Start with a free assessment or contact us.

Sources

• U.S. Department of State: Immigrant Visa Processing Updates for Nationalities at High Risk of Public Benefits Usage (updated August 28, 2026)
• U.S. Department of State: Proclamation 10998 — Suspension of Visa Issuance
• U.S. Department of State: Public Charge Bonds for Immigrant Visa Applicants
• U.S. Department of State: Adjudicating IV Applicants in Their Country of Residence
• NILC: CLINIC v. Rubio — case materials
• Cyrus Mehta: Federal Court Vacates State Department's 75-Country Immigrant Visa Suspension
• Maki Law: 75-Country Visa Ban, CLINIC v. Rubio (updated October 16)
• Clinch Law: Immigrant Visa Interviews After CLINIC v. Rubio
• Sumner Immigration: 75-Country Immigrant Visa Pause Is Over — What Happens Now
• Meduza: U.S. resumes processing of immigrant visa applications (in Russian)

This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. M&M Document Preparation is not a law firm. Information is current as of October 19, 2026.