A Washington, DC federal district court judge ruled that an ongoing green card freeze based on concerns that applicants from 75 countries could become dependent on public benefits is unlawful. Judge Amit Mehta held in a July 31 opinion that the public charge policy issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio is an exercise of authority specifically denied by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act. This ruling affects consular officers, immigration attorneys, and visa applicants from countries including Nigeria, Colombia, Russia, and Egypt.
What changed
The State Department policy adopted in January has blocked mostly family-based immigrant visa applicants and some employment-based green card seekers from countries including Nigeria, Colombia, Russia, and Egypt. Judge Mehta’s July 31 opinion declares this freeze unlawful—finding that the State Department lacks statutory authority to impose a categorical, nationality-based suspension on immigrant visa processing, even when invoking the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
The judge held that the public charge policy is an exercise of authority specifically denied by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The ruling reinforces that a public charge assessment must be individualized and linked to the specific facts of an applicant’s case no matter what factors are considered, and cannot be used to allow a full ban on visa issuance for entire countries.
Why it matters
For visa-issuing posts and consular officers, this decision signals that the freeze cannot legally continue in its current form. The blanket ban violates the case-by-case adjudication mandated by the INA. Immigration attorneys representing clients from affected countries can now point to a federal court ruling stating that individual applicants have a right to individualized public charge assessment—not categorical exclusion based on nationality.
The judgment is significant because it restrains a policy that had frozen processing for an estimated 40–45% of worldwide immigrant visa applicants, blocking even applicants whose visas had already been approved or authorized for printing. The ruling reaffirms congressional intent: the State Department may evaluate public charge eligibility on a case-by-case basis, but may not use it as a categorical tool to suspend visa processing by country.
Practitioners should note this does not automatically reinstate visa processing; the State Department may appeal or attempt to narrow the freeze’s scope. However, individual applicants from the 75 countries can now argue in administrative or judicial proceedings that they are entitled to individualized adjudication, not blanket denial based on nationality.
Way forward
-
For consular practitioners: Monitor forthcoming guidance from the Bureau of Consular Affairs clarifying implementation of the ruling. Continue to prepare individual public charge evaluations rather than placing all applications on hold.
-
For immigration counsel: Advise clients from affected countries that a federal court has rejected the blanket freeze. Request that the State Department adjudicate pending cases on an individualized basis and consider filing administrative appeals or mandamus petitions if posts continue to refuse processing.
-
For visa applicants: If your application has been on 221(g) administrative processing due to the freeze, your attorney may now file a request for adjudication arguing that you have a statutory right to individual evaluation under the INA.
-
Verify current policy: Confirm the State Department’s implementation of the ruling before assuming the freeze has ended. Appeals or further litigation may alter the timeline.
Disclaimer
This is a summary of a court ruling and does not constitute legal advice. Fola Editorial is not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and court decisions can be appealed, reversed, or distinguished. Verify all information against the primary source linked above and consult a licensed immigration attorney licensed in your jurisdiction before taking action.