A federal judge in Washington on Tuesday ordered the State Department to stop applying its blanket pause on immigrant visas to a group of plaintiffs from 75 affected countries, finding they are likely to prevail on claims that the policy violates federal immigration law and was adopted arbitrarily.
The ruling came four days after a federal judge in Manhattan struck down the policy nationwide, vacating the State Department’s suspension and visa refusals based solely on it.
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali granted much of the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in Storie v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents and visa applicants seeking family- and employment-based immigrant visas.
Ali did not order the government to decide every pending application within 30 days, as the plaintiffs requested. But he directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to restore affected plaintiffs to the places they would have held in visa-processing lines had the pause not occurred. For applicants whose visas were refused solely because of the pause, the department must complete adjudication within 30 days and issue visas to those who would otherwise have qualified.
The State Department must submit a compliance report to the court by Sept. 8.
The department announced the indefinite visa-issuance pause in January, saying it applied to immigrant-visa applicants from countries deemed at high risk of reliance on U.S. public benefits. Under internal guidance described in Ali’s opinion, consular officers were instructed to refuse visas to affected applicants after interviews unless another legal ground for refusal applied.
The 75 designated countries included Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Colombia, Haiti, Iran, Jamaica, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, Syria, Thailand and Yemen, among others. The policy affected countries across South Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and Europe.
Ali found that the policy appeared to conflict with the Immigration and Nationality Act’s individualized visa-review process. The law requires consular officers to adjudicate applications individually and permits visa refusals only on grounds authorized by law, he wrote.
“The Secretary cannot direct consular officers to refuse visas to all applicants from certain countries and then claim that the consular officers conducted an ‘individualized’ refusal,” Ali wrote.
The judge also concluded that the policy likely violated 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), which generally bars discrimination in immigrant-visa issuance based on nationality. He said that a generalized concern about prospective immigrants becoming public charges could not justify refusing visas to applicants whom consular officers had individually found did not present such a risk.
Ali found the pause was final agency action subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act, rejecting the government’s argument that it was merely an internal communication to consular officers. The policy was publicly announced, implemented and carried the legal consequence of requiring visa refusals, he wrote.
Ali declined to grant relief against President Donald Trump, ruling that the APA governs federal agencies and does not apply to the president. His injunction applies to the secretary of state.
The plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm through prolonged family separation, lost time involving employment, education and family planning, and alleged safety concerns for relatives stranded in countries including Iran, Pakistan and Russia, Ali found. Some applicants had completed interviews and were told they were eligible for visas but could not receive them because of the pause, according to the ruling.
The government argued that injuries claimed by the plaintiffs were speculative because the applicants might have been found ineligible on other grounds. Ali rejected that argument, saying the pause had effect only where there was no other legal ground to refuse a visa.
Ali’s ruling followed an Aug. 21 decision by U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas in Manhattan in Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc. v. Rubio. Vargas vacated the State Department’s 75-country suspension and set aside visa refusals based solely on the policy, remanding those cases to consular officers for further proceedings.
Vargas ruled that the nationality-based policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s anti-discrimination provision, its rules governing visa refusals and regulations limiting denials to grounds authorized by law. The lawsuit was brought by immigration advocacy organizations, visa applicants and U.S. citizens seeking to bring relatives to the United States.
“The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme,” Vargas wrote in her 61-page opinion.
Vargas rejected the government’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld a presidential entry restriction affecting nationals of several countries. She said that case distinguished between restrictions on admission to the United States and restrictions on visa issuance.
“There is no question that the Policy at issue here regulates visa issuance,” Vargas wrote.
The Manhattan court also found that Rubio exceeded his authority by directing consular officers that they “must refuse” immigrant visas for nationals of the designated countries. The order improperly predetermined case outcomes and displaced consular officers from the role Congress assigned them in the visa process, Vargas wrote.
Unlike Ali’s order, which is limited to the named plaintiffs and is preliminary, Vargas’ ruling vacated the policy itself and set aside refusals based only on the suspension. It does not require consular officers to grant visas or overturn refusals based on independent legal grounds, such as inadmissibility under the immigration law.
Vargas granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on claims that the policy was contrary to law and violated governing regulations. She ruled for the government on a separate claim that the policy required notice-and-comment rulemaking and ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by Sept. 11 outlining how they propose to address remaining claims.
Ali cited several earlier preliminary rulings against the visa suspension, writing that federal courts had reached a growing and unanimous conclusion that the blanket policy is likely unlawful. The cases remain pending, and the government may seek to appeal either ruling.