75-Country Visa Ban: State Fights Deadlines on Refusals

The State Department told a federal judge in Manhattan on Oct. 23 that it is still rereviewing immigrant visas refused under the vacated 75-country visa ban, but that the court can no longer order it to finish the job. The filing in Catholic Legal Immigration Network v. Rubio leaves applicants refused between Jan. 14 and Aug. 21, 2026, relying on an internal review with no completion date while an appeals court decides how much of the ruling against the ban survives.

The review has barely started. In an Oct. 5 sworn declaration, the department said consular officers had decided about 706 applications from Aug. 21 through Sept. 30 in which the policy was at least one ground for an earlier refusal. About 318 were issued or approved and about 388 were refused again on other grounds under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The plaintiffs, legal service groups and families led by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, put refusals based solely on the ban at about 43,000. Against that figure, the cases decided so far come to less than 2 percent, a calculation from the two filings, and the share may be smaller because the government’s count includes cases with other refusal grounds. NPR reported on Oct. 24 that advocates say the department is slow-walking visas for people from the 75 nations.

How the 75-country visa ban case split on Oct. 19

U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York struck down the Jan. 14 policy on Aug. 21 and sent the individual refusals back for new decisions. She later refused to pause her ruling, writing that striking down the policy as contrary to law “requires Defendants to adjudicate anew visa applications.”

On Oct. 19, the Second Circuit divided that judgment in a temporary order. It refused to pause the vacatur of the policy and the declaratory judgment, so the ban itself stays off the books. But it paused the part of the judgment that vacated and remanded individual refusals based solely on the policy, and it sent the government’s full stay motion to a three-judge panel. The result is two classes of applicants: new filers go through ordinary consular processing, while people already refused have lost, for now, the order guaranteeing them a fresh decision.

What each side is asking the judge to do

The government’s position. The Oct. 23 letter says a Sept. 10 cable told posts to find and review policy-only refusals, and that this work “continues notwithstanding the Second Circuit’s October 19 temporary stay.” But the department argues the court cannot compel the stayed remedy by calling it an automatic consequence of the vacatur and cites a 2025 Supreme Court order in a grant-termination case that drew the same line between a vacated policy and the individual decisions made under it. Officers will assess each applicant’s current eligibility and “document any independent basis for a new refusal,” the letter says. The department has given no end date and opposes fixed deadlines, warning they could produce more refusals under INA section 221(g) rather than finished cases.

The plaintiffs’ position. The plaintiffs argued on Oct. 19 that vacating the policy restored the rules that existed before it, so officers should have been deciding these cases since Aug. 21. Their proposed order would require decisions within 30 days of an applicant becoming documentarily qualified and twice-weekly sworn status reports by consulate, nationality and refusal ground. The government calls that broad discovery into procedures no court has found unlawful.

Where refused applicants stand now

Refused applicants now have two paths, and neither comes with a clock. The first is the department’s own review, which is not court-enforceable while the stay holds and promises no outcome. A reopened case is decided under today’s rules, including the expanded public charge review consular officers now apply.

The second is a long-standing regulation, 22 C.F.R. 42.81(e), which says that if an applicant presents further evidence tending to overcome the ground of refusal within one year of the refusal, the case must be reconsidered. The government’s letter calls that rule applicant-triggered, with no new fee. For the earliest refusals, the one-year window starts closing in mid-January 2027, possibly before the appeal is decided. The filings do not say how the rule works when the only refusal ground was a policy a court has since vacated, which is likely to be the next practical fight.

There is little outside the courtroom to measure progress against. The State Department has not published monthly immigrant visa issuance figures since February, so declarations in this case are the only public count.

Judge Vargas must now decide whether to defer the enforcement request, and the Second Circuit panel must rule on the full stay. The amended complaint is due Nov. 6 and the next joint case letter Nov. 20. If the panel keeps the stay, refused applicants depend on the department’s internal process until the appeal is decided; if it lifts the stay, Judge Vargas could move quickly on deadlines and reporting. Earlier coverage explains how the 75-country immigrant visa pause ended.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts