Judge Strikes Down US Immigrant Visa Ban for 75 Nations

Latin America · IMMIGRATION

The court set aside the policy under the Administrative Procedure Act. Restoring case-by-case review for affected applicants, though no new visas have been confirmed yet.

A US federal judge has struck down the immigrant visa ban that suspended visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries. The ruling, issued on Friday 21 August 2026, found the policy patently unlawful and beyond the Secretary of State’s authority.

The Ruling and Its Legal Basis

However, US District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York set aside the State Department’s policy.

She held that the suspension violated federal immigration law and exceeded Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statutory authority. The remedy is vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act, meaning the policy is void.

The judge wrote that the policy is ‘patently unlawful and must be vacated. However, the judge acted under the Administrative Procedure Act, not an injunction.

Therefore, the policy is void, not merely blocked. However, the court’s decision is based on the Administrative Procedure Act, not on constitutional grounds.

As a result, the policy is void, but the legal framework remains unchanged.

Immigrant Visa Ban Vacatur Scope

The decision is not limited to the people who sued. It sets aside the policy categorically suspending immigrant visas for applicants from the 75 designated countries.

In addition, the court vacated any immigrant visa denial that rested solely on the policy. Those cases are restored to lawful adjudication, meaning consular officers must review them case by case.

In addition, the vacatur is not limited to the named plaintiffs. As a result, the visa pause for all 75 countries is set aside in full.

In addition, the vacatur applies to all affected applicants, not just the plaintiffs. Therefore, the policy is set aside in full, restoring lawful adjudication for everyone.

No Stay and No Appeal Reported

As of Sunday 23 August 2026, no stay of the ruling has been reported. No appeal has been reported either.

Therefore, the order stands for now, but implementation is another matter. No State Department guidance has been issued to resume visa issuance, and no visa has been confirmed as issued since the ruling.

Meanwhile, no appeal has been filed as of 23 August 2026. Still, the government may yet act, but nothing is reported.

Meanwhile, no appeal has been filed, and no stay has been granted as of Sunday. Still, the government may appeal later, but nothing is reported yet.

What the Order Requires

The order requires the State Department to restore lawful, case-by-case evaluation of visa applications. It specifically addresses refusals under INA Section 221(g), a holding refusal that leaves applications pending.

Applicants refused solely because of the policy now have those refusals set aside. Their applications are sent back for further processing, though no interviews have been rescheduled yet.

The order also vacates any immigrant visa denial based solely on the policy. Therefore, those cases return to lawful adjudication, but no rescheduling is confirmed.

The order mandates case-by-case review for all affected applications. However, no consular guidance has been issued, so implementation remains pending.

The Policy That Was Struck Down

The State Department announced the immigrant visa ban on 14 January 2026, and it took effect on 21 January 2026. It paused immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries deemed at ‘high-risk’ of becoming a ‘public charge.

A public charge is a person likely to become primarily dependent on government benefits, normally assessed individually. The court struck down this blanket, nationality-based application of that concept.

The policy paused immigrant visas, not tourist or student visas, affecting permanent settlement. However, it was a blanket, nationality-based ban, not an individual assessment.

The policy was announced in January 2026 and took effect later that month. However, it applied a blanket ban based on nationality, which the court found unlawful.

Latin American and Caribbean Countries Affected

The 75-country list covers 17 states in Latin America and the Caribbean. They include Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, Nicaragua and Uruguay.

By contrast, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico are not on the list. Meanwhile, nationals of those countries were not covered and are unaffected.

Seventeen countries in the region are on the list, including Brazil and Cuba. Meanwhile, others like Mexico and Venezuela are not, so they are unaffected.

A Separate Entry Ban Remains

The ruling does not affect Presidential Proclamation 10998, a separate measure that suspends entry for nationals of 39 countries. That proclamation took effect on 1 January 2026 and remains in force.

Unlike the 75-country immigrant visa ban, the 39-country entry ban has two tiers: 19 countries fully suspended and 20 partially suspended. Cuba appears in the partial tier, but Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay do not appear at all.

That proclamation, with its tiers, is separate from the 75-country visa ban. Therefore, it stands, and Cuba remains partially suspended.

The 39-country entry proclamation remains in force, with Cuba partially suspended. However, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay are not on that list.

No Figures on Affected Applicants

No official or press source has given a number for how many people were affected by the immigrant visa ban. The decision’s scope is described only as every immigrant visa refusal that rested solely on the policy.

Still, the plaintiffs’ memo called it a nationality-based ban; no count exists. No number exists for affected applicants or refusals reversed.

However, the scope is described as every refusal based solely on the policy. No official count exists for how many people were affected.

However, the scope is described as every refusal based solely on the policy.

Reaction and Next Steps

The case, CLINIC v. Rubio, was filed on 2 February 2026 by a coalition of legal-assistance and civil rights organizations.

Democracy Forward and the Legal Aid Society acted for affected individuals and families. As a result, no appeal has been announced, so the government moves next.

The case was filed on 2 February 2026 by a coalition. Meanwhile, no appeal is reported, so the government’s next move is unknown.

The case was filed in February 2026 by a coalition of groups. Meanwhile, no appeal is reported, so the government’s next move is unknown.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the judge rule on the immigrant visa ban?

A federal judge vacated the immigrant visa ban, setting aside the policy that suspended immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries. The court found it patently unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Does the ruling mean people can now get immigrant visas?

The ruling requires the State Department to restore lawful, case-by-case evaluation, but no visas have been confirmed as issued yet. Consular posts have not received new guidance as of 23 August 2026.

Is the ruling on hold pending an appeal?

No stay has been reported, and no appeal has been filed as of 23 August 2026. The order is not stayed, but the government could still appeal.

Which countries are affected by the ruling?

The ruling affects nationals of 75 countries, including 17 in Latin America and the Caribbean such as Brazil, Colombia, and Cuba. Countries like Venezuela and Mexico are not on the list.

This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error