Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration’s Halt on Immigrant Visas for 75 Countries
A group of immigration advocates and affected individuals has gone to court to challenge a Trump administration decision that stopped the final processing of immigrant visas for applicants from dozens of countries.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Manhattan, contends that the policy effectively bars legal immigration based on nationality and is grounded in what the plaintiffs describe as an “unsupported and demonstrably false claim” that immigrants from the affected countries are more likely to rely on government assistance.
At the center of the case is a State Department directive issued in January and implemented on Jan. 21, which placed an open-ended freeze on the issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 mostly non-European countries, among them Brazil, Russia, Iran, and Somalia. The government said the move was tied to concerns about future dependence on public benefits.
While applicants from those countries are still permitted to submit applications and attend consular interviews, the State Department has suspended the final approval and issuance of visas while it reviews how it applies its “public charge” standards.
Opponents argue that the policy represents one of the broadest limits on lawful immigration in years, saying it resurrects and significantly widens prior public-charge enforcement by applying it wholesale to entire countries rather than evaluating applicants on an individual basis. They warn that this approach raises serious statutory and constitutional issues.
According to the plaintiffs, internal cables and guidance from the State Department replaced the traditional case-by-case “public charge” review with a blanket refusal system based on nationality. The lawsuit alleges that the policy:
• Automatically blocks immigrant visa approvals for applicants from 75 designated countries.
• Instructs consular officials to enforce “public charge” findings in an inflexible manner, weighing factors such as benefit usage, health history, and income in ways the plaintiffs say exceed the limits set by Congress.
• Abandons the individualized determinations required by the Immigration and Nationality Act in favor of categorical denials tied to country of origin.
The suit asks the court to issue both temporary and permanent orders stopping the policy and to formally rule that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution.
One of the plaintiffs, a U.S. citizen from Long Island, says the policy has left him separated from his immediate family. After traveling to Guatemala for his wife’s visa interview, Cesar Andred Aguirre returned to the United States alone, while consular officials informed his wife, Dania Mariela Escobar, that she would not be permitted to come back with him, leaving her and their young daughter abroad.
{Matzav.com}