On Jan. 14, 2026, the U.S. Department of State announced an indefinite halt on immigrant visa processing for applicants from 75 countries while it reassesses vetting procedures tied to the public charge ground of inadmissibility – whether a green card applicant is likely to become dependent on long-term government benefits. The department instructed consular officers to refuse immigrant visas under INA Section 221(g) for covered nationalities, even when interviews proceed and no other grounds of ineligibility are found. More than six months after announcing the policy, the department has not introduced any new public charge vetting tools, policies, or operations for immigrant visa applicants.
What Did the D.C. District Court Rule?
Following the State Department’s announcement, multiple lawsuits were filed, including by individual visa applicants whose green card processing was halted based on their nationality. One of these lawsuits, De Moura Gomes v. Rubio, was brought by a Brazilian entrepreneur, who in 2018 invested $500,000 in an Arizona hotel project through the EB-5 immigrant investor program. His EB-5 petition was approved, making him eligible to apply for a green card through consular processing in Brazil, along with his wife and two daughters. Plaintiff’s case had already been filed and his interview scheduled when the pause went into effect. He had also been diagnosed with advanced, incurable cancer during the six years since his qualifying investment.
On July 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in De Moura Gomes v. Rubio that the State Department’s visa freeze (Public Charge Policy) was unlawful and ordered re‑adjudication of the plaintiff’s immigrant visa application within a set timeframe. The court did not direct any particular outcome, meaning a consular officer may request additional evidence or refuse the case on a lawful, individualized basis. Importantly, the ruling did not vacate the policy nationwide. Relief was limited to the individual plaintiff and his derivative family members.
The Court’s Reasoning
- Limits on agency authority under the INA: INA Section 104(a), codified at 8 U.S.C. Section 1104(a), expressly withholds from the secretary of state the powers and functions assigned to consular officers relating to the granting or refusal of visas. A policy requiring consular officers to refuse applicants, regardless of individual circumstances, strips them of this discretion and is contrary to the INA.
- Court’s analysis of the public charge policy: INA Section 212(a)(4) makes an applicant inadmissible when, in the opinion of the consular officer, the person is likely at any time to become dependent on government benefits and thus be a “public charge.” The statute lists factors that, “at a minimum” the consular officer shall consider, including the applicant’s age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. The blanket Public Charge Policy nullifies this discretionary authority and is contrary to the INA.
- Final agency action: The court found the secretary’s directive to refuse immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries to be a final, binding policy with concrete legal consequences, not mere guidance.
- Consular nonreviewability does not bar review of a policy: The court explained that it may review forward‑looking challenges to the legality of State Department policies governing consular decisions.
- Unlawfully withheld action: Applying TRAC factors, the court held the agency had unlawfully withheld adjudication in the plaintiffs’ case, particularly given the policy’s indefinite suspension and the serious stakes identified in the record.
Potential Implications of the Decision
Although the decision is narrow and provides direct relief only to the plaintiff and his family, the court’s conclusion that the underlying Public Charge Policy is unlawful may strengthen the legal position of others seeking to challenge the processing freeze in court.
The Broader Litigation Landscape: APA and DS‑260 Themes
Separate federal litigation filed Feb. 2, 2026, also challenges the immigrant visa pause, alleging that the State Department altered its public charge adjudication standards without the notice‑and‑comment rulemaking required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
Public Charge Scrutiny Is Still Expanding
This ruling is narrow and does not end the freeze for all applicants. It also does not affect the Department of Homeland Security’s separate July 2026 final rule expanding the public charge framework for adjustment of status cases. That rule, effective Sept. 15, rescinds the 2022 Biden-era public charge regulations at 8 CFR Sections 212.20-212.23 and revises the public-charge-bond provisions at 8 C.F.R. Section 103.6(c).
Whether applying for a green card through adjustment of status inside the United States, or applying for an immigrant visa abroad, applicants should expect significant scrutiny of their financial, health, age, education, skills, insurance, and other circumstances.
Key Considerations for Employers and Applicants
- The D.C. court’s decision finds the blanket refusal policy inconsistent with the INA and requires individualized review in the plaintiff’s case, signaling a potential framework for other courts reviewing the same policy.
- Relief remains case‑specific; employers and applicants may not see an immediate resumption of immigrant visa processing as a result of this decision.
- Monitor agency updates and litigation developments, and preserve evidence of Section 221(g) refusals and individual harm tied to the pause, where applicable.
- Maintain current public charge‑related documentation for when adjudications resume, including current proof of income and assets, updated employment and tax records, proof of insurance, education credentials, and any evidence addressing age or health concerns.
The separate federal lawsuit’s APA and DS‑260 arguments raise questions regarding the procedures used to implement changes to public charge adjudications.
Applicants from paused countries may wish to continue monitoring case status, attending scheduled interviews, and preparing for public charge scrutiny. Applicants, agents, and sponsoring employers may wish to consult counsel regarding potential litigation strategies where prolonged Section 221(g) refusals cite the public charge pause.
