A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s policy pausing immigrant visa approvals for nationals of 75 countries violates federal immigration law. In De Moura Gomes v. Rubio, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta found that the policy exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This decision has significant implications for consular processing of immigrant visas, particularly in family-based categories.
What changed
The State Department introduced the policy in January 2026, directing consular officers to refuse covered immigrant visa applications while the government developed additional screening procedures concerning whether applicants might become dependent on public benefits. The freeze affected primarily family-based applicants, along with some employment- and investment-based applicants.
The law assigns consular officers—not the Secretary of State—the responsibility to evaluate visa applications individually and determine whether an applicant is likely to become a “public charge.” Judge Mehta concluded that the policy unlawfully eliminated that discretion by restricting individual case-by-case evaluation.
The court ordered the State Department to adjudicate the plaintiff’s EB-5 immigrant visa application.
Why it matters
The scope of this injunction is important to understand. The injunction applies specifically to the plaintiff’s application and does not, by itself, immediately lift the freeze for every affected applicant of the 75 countries. However, the court’s conclusion that the underlying policy is unlawful may strengthen similar challenges brought by other immigrant visa applicants in New York and DC district courts.
For practitioners, this decision provides a binding holding in the D.C. Circuit that the Secretary of State lacks authority to override the statutory grant of discretion to consular officers. The ruling directly contradicts the 75-country freeze on its statutory foundation and creates a strong precedent for defending clients in the same district who face visa denials under this policy. Other cases in parallel litigation may now cite this reasoning to challenge the policy nationwide.
If the policy is ultimately enjoined across multiple jurisdictions or dissolved administratively, the backlog of affected family-based, employment-based, and investment-based visa applications could be substantial.
Way forward
-
Review pending cases: If you represent a client from one of the 75 affected countries with a pending immigrant visa application, consult the De Moura Gomes holding and assess whether your client’s case is pending in the D.C., Southern District of New York, or another district with parallel litigation.
-
File challenges using statutory authority language: Cite Judge Mehta’s holding on the Secretary of State’s lack of authority to eliminate individual public charge determinations as controlling or persuasive authority in your own client challenges.
-
Monitor litigation in sister districts: Watch for rulings in the Southern District of New York and other jurisdictions that may expand the injunction geographically or lift the freeze for broader applicant pools.
-
Prepare client communications: Explain to clients that while this ruling is favorable on the legal merits, injunctive relief so far is limited to the individual plaintiff; broader relief may take additional litigation.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Articles.folaform.com is a software platform operated by Fola Inc., not a law firm. Consult with a licensed immigration attorney to discuss how this ruling affects your specific situation. Policy and court decisions can change without notice. Please verify all information against the primary source materials linked above and current USCIS, DOS, and DHS guidance.