NEW YORK — August 22, 2026

A federal judge in New York has struck down a Trump administration policy that suspended the issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries, including Nepal, delivering a significant legal setback to one of the administration’s major restrictions on legal immigration.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled Friday, August 21, that the State Department policy was contrary to federal law and exceeded the statutory authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Judge Vargas described the policy as “patently unlawful,” concluding that the State Department could not categorically prevent otherwise eligible applicants from receiving immigrant visas simply because of their nationality.

The ruling is particularly important for thousands of applicants from Nepal and the other affected countries seeking U.S. permanent residence through family-based, employment-based and other immigrant visa categories.

However, the decision does not mean that every applicant whose visa was delayed or refused will automatically receive a visa. Instead, refusals made solely because of the 75-country policy have been set aside and must be returned to U.S. consular officers for lawful, individualized adjudication. Applicants must still satisfy all other requirements under U.S. immigration law.

Nepal Was Specifically Included in the 75-Country Freeze

The State Department announced the controversial policy in January, with the suspension taking effect on January 21, 2026.

The department said it was reviewing screening and vetting procedures for nationals of countries considered at greater risk of becoming dependent on U.S. public benefits or being found inadmissible under the country’s existing “public charge” provisions.

Nepal was explicitly included among the 75 affected countries, along with Bangladesh, Pakistan, Brazil, Colombia, Russia, Nigeria, Thailand, Jamaica, Ethiopia, Iraq and dozens of nations across Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Balkans and the Middle East.

The restriction did not completely stop applicants from filing cases or appearing for interviews. The State Department’s own guidance stated that affected immigrant visa applicants could continue submitting applications and attending interviews and that U.S. embassies and consulates would continue scheduling appointments.

What the policy effectively stopped was the issuance of the immigrant visa itself to nationals covered by the restriction.

Court Says Nationality Alone Cannot Decide Visa Outcome

At the heart of Judge Vargas’ decision was the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA.

The court found that Congress established a system in which individual consular officers determine whether an immigrant visa applicant satisfies the legal requirements for a visa. The State Department could establish procedures and provide guidance, but the Secretary of State could not effectively predetermine the outcome of thousands of individual visa cases through a blanket nationality-based directive.

“The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme,” Vargas wrote in her ruling.

The court also concluded that the policy conflicted with the INA’s prohibition against discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas based on nationality, place of birth or place of residence.

Under existing public-charge law, consular officers are expected to assess applicants individually, considering relevant circumstances such as financial resources, family situation, health, education, skills and other factors permitted by immigration law.

The disputed State Department policy went significantly further: even where an applicant could otherwise demonstrate eligibility, the applicant could still be denied an immigrant visa because his or her nationality appeared on the government’s 75-country list.

Judge Vargas ruled that such a blanket approach could not replace the individualized determination required by Congress.

Rubio Exceeded His Authority, Court Finds

The court also rejected the administration’s argument that Secretary Rubio possessed sufficient authority to impose the restriction.

Vargas ruled that Congress had deliberately placed the determination of individual immigrant visa eligibility with consular officers and had limited the Secretary of State’s authority to dictate whether a particular applicant must be granted or refused a visa.

The January directive therefore exceeded Rubio’s statutory authority, the court concluded.

The policy was consequently vacated under the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law governing how executive agencies may adopt and implement government policies.

The ruling goes beyond providing relief only to the individuals who filed the lawsuit. The court vacated the underlying 75-country policy itself and also set aside visa refusals that were based solely on that policy.

Lawsuit Filed by Immigration Groups and Affected Families

The case was brought by organizations including the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) and African Communities Together, together with individuals whose families or immigration cases had been directly affected by the freeze.

According to the Associated Press, the lawsuit included 11 individual plaintiffs, including people whose relatives had been refused immigrant visas and others pursuing employment-based immigration to the United States.

The plaintiffs argued that the government’s blanket restriction unlawfully separated families and prevented consular officers from conducting the individualized visa evaluations required under federal law.

Immigration advocates welcomed Friday’s ruling as an important victory for legal immigration and family reunification.

What Does the Ruling Mean for Nepali Applicants?

For Nepali immigrant visa applicants, the most important consequence is that Nepali nationality by itself can no longer serve as the basis for refusing an immigrant visa under the January 21, 2026, 75-country policy, unless the ruling is later stayed or overturned through further litigation.

If an applicant’s visa was refused solely under this particular policy, the court has ordered such refusals set aside and returned to consular officers for reconsideration under normal immigration laws.

That does not mean a visa must be issued.

Applicants can still be denied for legitimate statutory reasons, including public-charge inadmissibility, criminal or security grounds, fraud or misrepresentation, missing documentation, medical inadmissibility or other grounds established by the INA.

The ruling eliminates the blanket nationality-based restriction, not the ordinary eligibility standards governing immigrant visas.

Public-Charge Rules Remain in Effect

Judge Vargas did not invalidate the underlying public-charge provisions of U.S. immigration law.

Applicants can still be required to demonstrate adequate financial support and, where applicable, provide evidence from qualified sponsors showing that they are unlikely to become primarily dependent on government assistance.

The State Department has also introduced a Public Charge Bond pilot procedure under which certain immigrant visa applicants found inadmissible on public-charge grounds may, in appropriate cases, be allowed to seek a bond as an additional way to overcome that finding.

That program remains separate from the 75-country nationality-based restriction struck down by the court.

Tourist and Student Visas Were Not Covered by This Policy

The ruling should also not be confused with rules governing B1/B2 visitor visas, F-1 student visas or most other nonimmigrant visas.

The State Department specifically stated when announcing the January policy that the 75-country restriction applied to immigrant visa issuance and did not apply to tourist visas.

Therefore, Friday’s ruling concerns the immigrant visa restriction and should not be interpreted as a broad court decision covering every category of U.S. visa.

Separate Travel Restrictions May Still Apply

The decision also does not automatically eliminate other immigration or national-security restrictions established under separate presidential proclamations, statutes or State Department directives.

For example, the administration has imposed separate full or partial entry and visa restrictions affecting nationals of certain countries on national-security grounds.

Likewise, Diversity Visa applicants face a separate State Department policy. The department announced in December 2025 that it had paused Diversity Visa issuance while reviewing screening and vetting procedures. That separate DV directive was not itself the policy challenged in the 75-country case.

As a result, the practical effect of the Vargas ruling will depend on the applicant’s nationality, visa category and whether any separate restriction applies to the individual case.

Administration Could Still Appeal

The August 21 decision represents a major victory for the plaintiffs, but the legal fight may not necessarily be over.

The Trump administration has the option of appealing the ruling and could seek to have the decision stayed while an appeal proceeds. As of Saturday evening, August 22, there was no widely reported court order reversing or staying Judge Vargas’ decision.

The State Department told the Associated Press on Saturday that the administration was protecting Americans by maintaining rigorous screening and vetting standards but declined to comment further on the pending litigation.

The parties have also been directed to submit a joint proposal by September 11, 2026, addressing how the remaining portions of the litigation should proceed.

For now, however, the central outcome is clear: the Trump administration’s blanket policy preventing immigrant visas from being issued to nationals of Nepal and 74 other countries has been vacated by a federal court.

For Nepali families who have spent months waiting for lawful immigration cases to move forward, the ruling removes a major barrier. But it restores the right to an individual visa determination—it does not guarantee approval.

Each applicant must still qualify under U.S. immigration law, and applicants with pending or previously refused cases should closely follow official instructions from the U.S. Department of State and the embassy or consulate handling their cases.