Explainer · Litigation
What the 75-country visa ruling means for Afghan allies.
A federal court struck down the State Department policy that suspended immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, Afghanistan among them. Here is what changed, what did not, and what to do now.
Last updated August 22, 2026
This case is about a different policy: the 75-country visa pause, not the travel ban above. As of August 22, 2026, that visa pause is vacated and can no longer be used to refuse a visa. The court also set aside refusals that were based solely on the pause and sent those applications back to consular officers for a new decision. The December 16, 2025 Presidential Proclamation, the broad multi-country travel ban that bars most Afghans, is a separate policy and remains fully in force. No notice of appeal had been filed as of this writing. The government has until roughly October 20, 2026 to appeal, sixty days from the decision under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B), so this is not yet final. The parties must also tell the court by September 11, 2026 how they intend to handle the remaining claims.Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, No. 26-cv-00858 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2026).
Do not confuse these
Two different policies, two different origins.
Afghans are caught by two separate government actions that are easy to mix up. This ruling touched only one of them. Here is how they differ.
- How it was made
- A State Department cable from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, issued January 14, 2026 and effective January 21, 2026. Not a proclamation and not an executive order.
- What it was about
- Public charge. The 75 countries were selected using data on the share of immigrant households receiving public assistance.
- What it did
- Paused immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, Afghanistan among them.
- Status now
- Vacated. This is the policy the court struck down in CLINIC v. Rubio.
- How it was made
- A presidential entry ban that grew out of Executive Order 14161, signed January 20, 2025. It was first established by the June 4, 2025 proclamation (Proclamation 10949) and then modified by the December 16, 2025 proclamation (Proclamation 10998), effective January 1, 2026.
- What it is about
- Entry. It rests on the President's authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend the entry of classes of noncitizens, on a national security rationale.
- What it does
- Suspends the entry of nationals of 39 countries, plus holders of Palestinian Authority travel documents: 19 under full suspension, 19 under partial restrictions, and Turkmenistan for immigrant visas only. Afghanistan is in the full-suspension group, and the proclamation no longer broadly exempts Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders.
- Status now
- Fully in force. It was not before the court, and this ruling does not touch it.
- Read the text
- Proclamation 10949 and Proclamation 10998 in the Federal Register.
Bottom line The court struck down the visa pause, which was about public charge. The travel ban, which is about entry, is a separate policy on a separate legal track, and it remains in force. If you are Afghan, the policy most likely keeping you out is the travel ban, and it did not change.
Refused under 212(f)? If your visa was refused under Section 212(f), the authority behind the travel ban, this ruling does not change your case. The court set aside only refusals based solely on the 75-country visa pause. A refusal grounded in the entry proclamation stands, even if the notice also cited the pause.
What the court struck down
One nationality-based visa pause, vacated.
On January 14, 2026, the State Department announced it would pause all immigrant visa issuances to nationals of 75 countries, effective January 21. Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent a cable the same day directing every diplomatic and consular post to carry it out. According to the administrative record, the countries were selected using Council of Economic Advisers data on the share of immigrant households receiving public assistance, with countries above a 30 percent threshold included and certain countries excluded for foreign-policy reasons. Afghanistan was on the list.
Immigrant visas only
The policy covered immigrant visas for nationals of nearly 40 percent of the world's countries.
Interviews continued
Consular officers were told to keep interviewing applicants and assessing every ground of ineligibility.
Eligible applicants refused
If an officer found no ground of ineligibility, or an applicant overcame a public charge finding, the officer was still directed to refuse under Section 221(g).
Approved cases reopened
Posts were told to reopen and refuse cases where a visa had been approved but not yet released.
Why the court ruled against the State Department
The Secretary exceeded his authority, and the policy was contrary to law.
Judge Vargas found the policy discriminated by nationality, ordered the refusal of applicants already found eligible, exceeded the Secretary's statutory authority, and violated the agency's duty to follow its own rules. The four grounds are below.
The court's reasoning
Four legal grounds.
It discriminated by nationality
8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A) provides that no person shall be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of nationality, race, sex, place of birth, or place of residence. The court traced the provision to the 1965 amendments that ended the national-origins quota system, and held that the policy required refusals based solely on nationality.
It ordered refusals of eligible applicants
Section 221(g), codified at 8 U.S.C. 1201(g), permits refusal when an applicant is ineligible. The cable directed officers to refuse applicants they had already found eligible. The court held this contrary to that section and to 22 C.F.R. 40.6, which permits refusal only on a ground set out in law or regulation.
It exceeded the Secretary's authority
8 U.S.C. 1104(a) charges the Secretary of State with administering the immigration laws but expressly excludes the powers conferred on consular officers to grant or refuse visas. The court held that Congress divested the Secretary of authority to dictate the outcome of individual adjudications.
It did not follow the agency's own rules
Under the Accardi doctrine, an agency must follow its own valid regulations. The court held the policy violated that doctrine for the same reason it was contrary to 22 C.F.R. 40.6.
What the court rejected
The plaintiffs did not win everything. The court held the policy did not conflict with the public charge provision, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), because it preserved the individualized assessment and routed refusals through Section 221(g). It also held the policy was not a legislative rule requiring notice-and-comment. Judgment was entered for the government on that claim.
The remedy
The court vacated the policy nationwide under the Administrative Procedure Act rather than issuing an injunction, and entered a declaratory judgment that it was unlawful. It set aside refusals based solely on the policy and remanded them to consular officers, without directing any outcome or setting a deadline. It did not vacate refusals that rested on another ground, even where the notice also cited the policy.
Set expectations
What this ruling does not do.
This is a real and important win, but it is narrow. The decision does not:
- End the travel ban that bars most Afghans, the December 16, 2025 Presidential Proclamation
- Exempt Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders from the entry proclamation
- Affect nonimmigrant visas, refugee admissions, or USCIS cases inside the United States
- Order any visa to be issued, or guarantee approval on readjudication
- Invalidate the public charge ground of ineligibility, which the court left intact
Why this ruling does less for Afghans
Two separate policies, one still standing.
The policy struck down here is the public charge visa pause that took effect January 21, 2026. The policy blocking most Afghans is the December 16, 2025 Presidential Proclamation, effective January 1, 2026, a broad entry ban that suspends the entry of nationals of 39 countries and holders of Palestinian Authority travel documents, with Afghanistan among the 19 countries under full suspension. Unlike the June 4, 2025 travel ban it expanded, it carries no broad categorical exemption for Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders. That proclamation was not challenged in this case.
The distinction is legal, not rhetorical. The antidiscrimination provision the court applied governs the issuance of visas. In Trump v. Hawaii, decided in 2018, the Supreme Court held that the provision does not reach presidential restrictions on entry. Judge Vargas relied on that same distinction. A refusal grounded in the entry proclamation therefore rests on a separate legal basis and falls outside the vacatur.
This is why the split matters. Of the 75 countries on the visa pause, 52 are on that list only. For their nationals, the vacatur removes the barrier cleanly. The other 23, Afghanistan among them, are also named in the entry proclamation, so their nationals remain blocked by a policy this ruling did not touch. The applicants best positioned to benefit are those whose refusal cited the 75-country pause and nothing else, which describes far more nationals of the 52 pause-only countries than of the 23 on both lists.
If you are an Afghan national outside the U.S.
What to do now.
If your visa was approved but not yet issued
This is the clearest beneficiary of the ruling. The pause had directed posts to reopen and refuse cases where a visa was already approved but not yet printed. Where that refusal rested solely on the pause, it is now set aside and the case returns to the post for a new decision. Keep your passport and file current so the post can act.
Caveat for Afghan nationals. If the entry proclamation, Section 212(f), also applies to your case, that barrier remains even after this ruling. Check which grounds your refusal notice cites before you count on a visa.
Do not change your plans
Nothing about your case changes automatically. Do not make travel arrangements, and do not go to an embassy or consulate for an interview you were not scheduled for. Do not withdraw or refile anything, and do not pay anyone who tells you a path has reopened.
Read your refusal notice
Identify every ground it cites. A refusal citing only the paused policy is the one the court set aside. A refusal citing Section 212(f), the entry proclamation, or any other ground of ineligibility stands, even if it also mentioned the pause.
Keep your file current
Make sure your affidavit of support, financial evidence, and civil documents are up to date so a post can readjudicate without delay if your case is returned to it.
Get real legal advice
For case-specific questions, consult a licensed immigration attorney or a Department of Justice accredited representative. AfghanEvac cannot provide individual legal advice.
If you are an Afghan national in the U.S.
This ruling does not reach you.
The case concerns immigrant visa issuance at consular posts abroad. It does not change adjudications by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, parole, asylum, work authorization, or adjustment of status for people already in the United States.
Go deeper
Read the record and track the case.
Read the decision, follow the public docket on CourtListener, and track this case alongside every other suit affecting Afghan allies on our litigation tracker. If you take one thing from this page: the ruling struck down the 75-country visa pause, not the broader travel ban that is keeping most Afghans out.
Related explainers
Understand your options
V-PRIC shows which pathways you may be eligible for. It does not change whether you can enter the United States now, which for most Afghans still depends on the travel ban above.
This explainer summarizes a public court decision for informational purposes and is not legal advice. Case details are drawn from the August 21, 2026 opinion and the docket on CourtListener, a service of the Free Law Project. For guidance on your own case, consult a qualified immigration attorney.