A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration’s policy that suspended immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, ruling that the State Department’s blanket nationality-based policy violated federal immigration law and exceeded Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s authority.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York issued the decision on August 21, 2026. The court vacated the policy and also ordered that immigrant visa refusals based solely on the 75-country suspension be set aside and returned for further processing.
For international students and professionals, the most important distinction is that this ruling concerns immigrant visas, not F-1 student visas, CPT, OPT, STEM OPT, or H-1B nonimmigrant visas.
On January 14, 2026, the Department of State announced that beginning January 21 it would pause immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries.
The list included Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and dozens of others. The policy covered nearly 40% of the world’s countries.
The State Department said applicants from the designated countries presented a higher risk of becoming a “public charge,” meaning potentially becoming primarily dependent on government assistance.
Consular officers were still instructed to interview and evaluate applicants individually. However, even when an officer concluded that an applicant was otherwise eligible and was not likely to become a public charge, the policy required the officer to refuse the immigrant visa because of the applicant’s nationality.
That conflict became central to the lawsuit.
Judge Vargas concluded that the State Department could not replace the immigration system established by Congress with a blanket nationality-based refusal rule.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, consular officers are responsible for deciding whether an individual immigrant visa applicant qualifies for a visa. Federal law also prohibits discrimination in immigrant visa issuance based on factors including nationality.
The court found that the 75-country policy improperly required consular officers to refuse visas based on nationality even when an individualized review found no separate legal reason for refusal.
The judge therefore ruled that the policy was contrary to law and exceeded the Secretary of State’s statutory authority.
Importantly, the decision does more than prevent the State Department from applying the policy going forward. The court ordered that immigrant visa refusals based solely on the 75-country policy also be vacated and sent back for further proceedings.
That does not mean every affected applicant will now receive a visa. Consular officers can still refuse an applicant under other applicable immigration laws, including an individualized public-charge determination or another ground of inadmissibility.
Not directly.
An immigrant visa is generally used by someone seeking to immigrate permanently to the United States. By contrast, F-1 student visas and H-1B visas are classified as nonimmigrant visas. CPT, OPT, and STEM OPT are forms of employment authorization connected to F-1 status rather than immigrant visa categories. The court itself specifically distinguished immigrant visas from visas issued for temporary study, work, tourism, and other nonimmigrant purposes.
The ruling can nevertheless matter to international students and professionals who are further along in the U.S. immigration process.
For example, an F-1 graduate or H-1B professional pursuing an employment-based immigrant visa through consular processing outside the United States could be directly affected if their nationality was among the 75 countries. Family members pursuing family-sponsored immigrant visas could also benefit from the ruling.
The decision concerns State Department immigrant visa issuance abroad; it does not itself change USCIS rules governing CPT, OPT, H-1B petitions, or adjustment of status inside the United States.
The August 21 ruling should not be confused with the Trump administration’s separate restrictions under Presidential Proclamation 10998.
That proclamation took effect January 1, 2026 and fully or partially restricts entry and visa issuance for nationals of 39 countries, subject to specified exceptions. Some of those restrictions cover nonimmigrant categories, including F, M, and J student and exchange visas.
Therefore, a country appearing on both policies may still face visa restrictions even though the separate 75-country immigrant visa freeze has now been vacated.
This distinction is especially important for students: the court did not issue a general order reopening F-1 visas or eliminating the administration’s separate travel restrictions.
The State Department must deal with immigrant visa cases affected solely by the invalidated policy through further proceedings consistent with the court’s order. The decision does not guarantee approval, and normal visa eligibility requirements continue to apply.
The government could also seek further judicial review, so applicants with pending or previously refused immigrant visa cases should watch for State Department implementation guidance and developments in the litigation.
The court ordered the parties to submit proposals by September 11, 2026 addressing how the remaining claims in the lawsuit should proceed.
For now, the key takeaway is narrow but significant: the State Department may no longer use the 75-country policy itself as an automatic reason to deny an immigrant visa. Individual applicants must instead be considered under the applicable immigration laws and eligibility rules.