A federal judge has ruled that the State Department’s sweeping freeze on immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta issued the opinion in De Moura Gomes v. Rubio in late July 2026, with the decision drawing wide attention in the first days of August.
The policy at issue was instituted in January 2026 by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It directed consular officers to refuse covered immigrant visa applications from nationals of 75 listed countries — including Nigeria, Colombia, Russia and Egypt — while the department developed additional screening procedures aimed at public-benefits dependency. Critically, the directive required refusal even where the reviewing officer found no individualized legal basis to deny the visa.
That mandatory quality is what sank the policy. Judge Mehta held that the Secretary had exercised authority Congress expressly withheld: the INA assigns responsibility for evaluating public charge inadmissibility to consular officers examining individual cases, and the blanket directive eliminated that discretion by compelling refusals from listed-country nationals even when an applicant demonstrated financial self-sufficiency. The court also rejected the government’s threshold argument that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability barred the suit, reasoning that the challenge targeted a department-wide policy rather than any single visa decision — a holding that may prove as consequential as the merits ruling itself.
The scope of relief, however, is narrow. The plaintiff, Newton De Moura Gomes, is a Brazilian national whose EB-5 investor visa application had been stalled under the policy. The court ordered the State Department to stop applying the policy to his application and to adjudicate it once a consular officer determines it is complete. The order does not lift the freeze for the other affected nationals, and applicants from the 75 countries should not expect their cases to move automatically as a result of this decision.
What the ruling does provide is a reasoned federal holding that the underlying policy is unlawful, which materially strengthens comparable challenges now pending in other district courts. Applicants stalled under the freeze should be aware that the legal ground has shifted and may wish to discuss individual litigation options with counsel, while recognizing that the government is likely to appeal and that a broader remedy is not yet in place.
The decision also lands alongside a related development: on August 5, the State Department launched a public charge bond pilot offering some immigrant visa applicants refused on public charge grounds a path to proceed by posting a bond. Together the two developments signal that public charge screening at consulates remains in active flux, in the courts and at the agency simultaneously.
Need help with your immigration petition? Visit QuickFiling.us for AI-guided NIW and EB-1A petition preparation.
Source: De Moura Gomes v. Rubio (D.D.C.)