Federal Court Strikes Down 75-Country Immigrant Visa Ban in Case Brought by Colombo & Hurd and Coalition Partners

On August 21, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York vacated one of the most sweeping immigration restrictions in modern memory: a State Department policy that categorically suspended immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, nearly 40% of the nations on Earth. 

The decision in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) v. Rubio, No. 26-CV-00858, came on cross-motions for summary judgment, with the court granting judgment to the plaintiffs on the central claims in the case. Colombo & Hurd’s federal litigation team, led by Sarah Wilson, a former Department of Justice litigator, fought this case along with a collection of exceptional co-counsel on behalf of families and workers whose lives were put on hold by a policy the court found “patently unlawful.” 

What the Policy Did 

On January 14, 2026, the State Department announced that, effective January 21, it would pause all immigrant visa issuances to nationals of 75 designated countries, from Brazil and Colombia to Ghana, Ethiopia, Jamaica, and Pakistan, on the theory that immigrants from those countries posed a “high risk” of becoming a public charge. 

The same day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent a cable to every consular post in the world with a blunt instruction: refuse. Even if a consular officer conducted a full interview, assessed every ground of ineligibility under the law, and concluded that an applicant was fully qualified for a visa, the officer was ordered to refuse the application anyway under INA § 221(g). The outcome was predetermined by passport, not by merit. 

The practical result: spouses kept from spouses, parents from children, and skilled professionals with approved petitions were told that their nationality alone disqualified them even after doing everything asked of them. 

What the Court Held 

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas did not mince words, opening the analysis this way: “In many ways, this is not a challenging case.” The court held that the policy was contrary to law and exceeded the Secretary of State’s statutory authority, on four independent grounds: 

First, it violated the INA’s anti-discrimination mandate. Since 1965, federal law has flatly prohibited discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas based on nationality or place of birth. This was a reform passed at the height of the civil rights movement, signed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, and designed to guarantee that people come to America “because of what they are, and not because of the land from which they sprung.” A categorical ban on visas for nationals of 75 countries, the court held, cannot be squared with that command. 

Second, it ordered refusals with no basis in law. Under INA § 221(g) and its implementing regulations, a consular officer may refuse a visa only on a ground specifically set out in the law. The policy demanded the opposite: refusal of applicants whom officers had already found eligible. As the court put it, the government’s defense of this maneuver was “an exercise in Orwellian logic.” 

Third, the ban usurped the exclusive authority of consular officers. Congress vested consular officers, not the Secretary of State, with the final say on granting or refusing visas. The policy allowed officers to go through the motions of adjudication, but “they are permitted to reach only one result: refusal.” That, the court held, guts the role Congress assigned them. 

Finally, it exceeded the Secretary’s statutory power. The INA expressly carves visa adjudications out of the Secretary of State’s authority. By dictating outcomes for an enormous class of applications, the Secretary went beyond what Congress permitted. 

The Remedy: Real Relief, Not Just Words 

The court didn’t stop at declaring the policy unlawful. It vacated the policy in its entirety and nationwide. Critically, it also set aside every immigrant visa refusal that was based solely on the policy, remanding those applications for genuine adjudication on the merits. 

That means applicants who were refused for no reason other than their nationality now get what the law promised them all along: an individualized decision, made by a consular officer, under the standards Congress wrote. Sarah Wilson, who led the litigation for the firm, put the stakes plainly: 

“Behind this case are families, loved ones, and communities who were harmed by a policy that blocked immigrant visas on a categorical basis. Today’s decision affirms that this kind of sweeping suspension is not permitted by law, and it offers meaningful relief to those whose visa refusals rested solely on that policy.” 

What This Means If You Were Affected 

If you or a family member is a national of one of the 75 designated countries and your immigrant visa was refused under § 221(g) after January 21, 2026 with no other ground of ineligibility cited this decision directly affects your case. Those refusals have been set aside and remanded for readjudication. 

Why This Matters Beyond One Policy 

This decision is a reaffirmation of a principle that sits at the foundation of American immigration law: every applicant is entitled to be judged as an individual, not written off by category. For over two decades, Colombo & Hurd has built its practice on the belief that immigration outcomes should turn on the strength of the individual case. Our federal litigation team exists for the moments when the government forgets that. Today, a federal court agreed.