- A U.S. judge struck down the Trump administration's 75-country immigrant visa suspension, ruling the State Department exceeded its legal authority.
- The court deemed the blanket nationality-based ban "patently unlawful" for interfering with statutory requirements for individual applicant evaluations.
- Affected applicants, including those from Nepal, may resume the visa process but must still meet all standard legal and financial eligibility criteria.
Washington/Kathmandu: A U.S. federal judge has struck down a Trump administration policy that suspended the issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries, including Nepal, ruling that the State Department had exceeded the legal authority granted to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York issued the ruling on Friday, August 21, 2026, in a lawsuit brought by immigrant-rights organizations, visa applicants and U.S. citizens seeking to bring family members to the United States.
The court described the State Department’s policy as “patently unlawful,” according to court reporting and Reuters. The decision represents a significant legal setback for the administration’s efforts to restrict legal immigration, although it applies specifically to the challenged immigrant-visa suspension and does not invalidate U.S. immigration or visa restrictions more broadly.
Policy had halted immigrant-visa issuance
The U.S. Department of State announced on January 14 that, beginning January 21, it would pause the issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries.
The department said the measure was intended to allow the government to reassess how it determines whether prospective immigrants were likely to become dependent on public benefits after entering the United States.
The suspension applied to immigrant-visa applicants who were nationals of the countries on the list and remained in effect until further notice.
The policy did not apply to nonimmigrant visas, including tourist, student and other temporary visas. It also did not amount to a blanket cancellation of visas that had already been issued.
Instead, it primarily affected people seeking permanent residence in the United States through immigrant-visa processing at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.
Nepal among the affected countries
Nepal was among the 75 countries included in the suspension, along with other South Asian countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Bhutan and Afghanistan.
The list also included countries from Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe, including Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay, Russia, Iran, Haiti, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ghana and Egypt.
For Nepali applicants, the policy had particular significance because many families rely on U.S. consular processing to complete family-based immigration cases. Employment-based immigrant-visa applicants were also affected.
The suspension meant that even applicants who had otherwise progressed through the immigration process could face delays in receiving their immigrant visas.
Administration cited public-charge concerns
The Trump administration defended the suspension primarily on public-charge grounds.
The State Department argued that nationals of the affected countries were considered to face a higher risk of becoming dependent on U.S. public assistance after entering the country. The government said the temporary pause would provide an opportunity to reassess its procedures for determining whether applicants were likely to become financially dependent on public resources.
The measure formed part of the administration’s broader effort to tighten immigration screening and reduce what it considers potential financial burdens on U.S. government programs.
Immigrant-rights organizations, however, challenged the policy, arguing that the administration had gone beyond the authority provided by Congress. They said immigration law requires applicants to be assessed under established legal criteria rather than being subjected to a blanket suspension based on their nationality.
Judge says State Department exceeded its authority
The central legal question before Judge Vargas was whether the Secretary of State had the authority to categorically suspend immigrant-visa issuance to nationals of entire countries.
The court concluded that the State Department did not have such authority.
According to the ruling, Congress has established a legal framework under which individual applicants are evaluated by consular officers to determine whether they qualify for immigrant visas. The court found that the State Department’s blanket suspension interfered with that statutory framework.
Judge Vargas therefore ruled that the policy exceeded the Secretary of State’s statutory authority and was contrary to federal immigration law.
The decision does not prevent the government from enforcing existing immigration requirements or conducting public-charge and admissibility assessments on individual applicants. Rather, it rejects the government’s attempt to suspend immigrant-visa issuance categorically based on nationality.
Immigrant-rights groups welcomed ruling
The case, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, was filed in the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs included the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, African Communities Together, immigrant-visa applicants and U.S. citizens seeking to sponsor relatives for immigration to the United States.
The plaintiffs argued that the administration had effectively created a nationality-based barrier to legal immigration without sufficient authority under federal law.
The ruling sided with the plaintiffs on the central question of whether the Secretary of State could impose such a broad suspension.
For families who had been waiting for their immigrant-visa cases to move forward, the decision could provide renewed hope, although the practical effect will depend on how the State Department responds and whether the administration seeks to appeal the ruling.
Ruling does not automatically approve visas
Despite the significance of the decision, affected applicants should not assume that their immigrant visas have been automatically approved.
Applicants must still meet all applicable requirements under U.S. immigration law, including eligibility, security, medical and admissibility requirements.
The ruling removes the challenged blanket suspension; it does not eliminate the normal immigrant-visa process.
The next major question is whether the State Department will immediately resume immigrant-visa issuance for affected applicants or seek a stay of the ruling while the case continues through the courts.
The administration could also appeal the decision.
Broader legal battle continues
The New York case is part of a wider legal battle over the Trump administration’s 75-country immigrant-visa suspension.
Other federal litigation has also questioned whether the State Department can categorically halt immigrant-visa issuance under a public-charge rationale.
At the heart of the disputes is the balance between executive authority and the immigration powers assigned to Congress and implemented through established federal procedures.
The legal challenges have increased scrutiny of the administration’s decision to apply the suspension to nationals of entire countries rather than relying exclusively on individual assessments of applicants.
What the ruling means for Nepali applicants
For Nepali citizens waiting for immigrant visas, the ruling could prove particularly important.
Nepal was among the countries affected by the January suspension, meaning some Nepali applicants whose cases had otherwise progressed through the immigration process were unable to receive their immigrant visas.
If the ruling takes effect without a stay, affected Nepali applicants could once again have their cases considered under the normal immigrant-visa process.
However, applicants should wait for official instructions from the U.S. Department of State or the relevant U.S. embassy before assuming that visa issuance has resumed.
The ruling also does not affect every U.S. immigration policy. Nepali travelers should distinguish this case from other restrictions involving tourist, student, employment and other nonimmigrant visas, as well as separate travel and immigration measures introduced by the administration.
Families await next step
For families separated by the visa suspension, the court decision offers a potential path forward after months of uncertainty.
Many applicants had already completed significant portions of the U.S. immigration process before the suspension prevented them from receiving their visas. The ruling could allow those cases to move forward if it remains in effect.
The immediate focus will now shift to the State Department’s response and whether the Trump administration appeals the decision or seeks to temporarily block its implementation.
For Nepali, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and other affected families, the outcome could determine whether long-delayed immigration cases finally begin moving again.
The ruling is therefore an important judicial check on one specific Trump administration immigration policy. At the same time, the broader legal and political debate over the scope of executive power and the future of U.S. immigration restrictions is likely to continue.
