The USCIS Pause: 39 Countries, Impacts Applicants Already Inside the United States
What It Is
Policy Memorandum (PM)-602-0192 directed USCIS to place a hold, pending comprehensive review, on all asylum applications for all applicants and on all pending benefit applications for people from the 19 countries named in Presidential Proclamation 10949. It also directed re-review of approved benefit requests for people from those countries who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021.
The proclamation broadened the administration’s country-based restrictions to a total of 39 countries and built on the earlier June 4, 2025 proclamation, which the administration justified on national-security and public-safety grounds. USCIS then adopted PM-602-0194 on January 1, 2026, effective immediately, extending its existing hold-and-review framework to benefit applications filed on by or on behalf of nationals from newly covered countries and requiring additional review of certain approved cases.
The later USCIS policy narrowed prior family-based exceptions, meaning that some applicants with qualifying family relationships were no longer automatically shielded from the hold-and-review system.
The list of the 39 countries covered in this proclamation may be found here.
Current Legal Landscape of Challenges to the USCIS Pause
In Akmurat O. Doe v. Trump, a federal judge in Massachusetts granted preliminary relief blocking USCIS from enforcing the pause against the plaintiffs, signaling significant judicial skepticism toward indefinite nationality-based adjudication freezes. Plaintiffs argue the policy unlawfully suspends adjudications in violation of the APA, while the government maintains USCIS retains broad discretion over national-security vetting and adjudication procedures.
The State Department Pause: National Security Reviews Affecting 39 Countries and Public Charge Exemptions Impacting Applicants from 75 Countries Abroad
What It Is
The consular pause applies to immigrant visa applicants at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, including family-based green cards, employment-based immigrant visas, and diversity visas. It does not reach nonimmigrant categories such as tourist, student, or temporary work visas. The policy also marked a departure from prior practice by removing the protection that immediate relatives of U.S. citizens often received in consular processing — family ties no longer guarantee a clean path around the pause.
Understanding how the pause affects you depends on which list your country appears on, because the 39-country and 75-country lists are separate policies with different legal bases, and they overlap in ways that matter.
39-Country Group
Applicants from the smaller group tied to formal presidential proclamations are receiving outcomes that more closely resemble true INA § 212(f)-based refusals or substantive visa ineligibility determinations. In these cases, the consulate is effectively saying the applicant cannot presently receive a visa because of a nationality-based entry restriction, not that the case is incomplete. Additional documents alone will not resolve the problem, and waivers or changes in policy or litigation outcomes are often necessary.
75 Country Group
The State Department’s public-charge freeze casts a wider net. It covers many countries not on the 39-country proclamation list, meaning applicants from those countries face consular processing delays without the additional layer of a formal entry ban. Applicants from these countries may still submit applications and attend interviews, but final visa issuance remains paused indefinitely.
Applicants from the broader group affected by the State Department pause are more commonly receiving prolonged administrative processing, indefinite delays, or formal 221(g) refusals. Practitioners argue that many of these are not genuine case-specific holds but rather de facto nationality-based freezes disguised as pending processing, a distinction central to the current litigation. A legitimate 221(g) involves individualized review or a specific pending information request. An indefinite nationality-wide freeze begins to look more like an unlawful categorical suspension without proper statutory authority. Courts have started expressing skepticism toward this kind of blanket pause, particularly on the USCIS side, and that skepticism is informing how advocates are framing the consular challenges as well.
When Your Country Appears on Both Lists
Applicants from countries appearing on both lists may face simultaneous barriers abroad through DOS processing freezes and inside the United States through USCIS adjudication holds, significantly limiting available immigration pathways absent litigation or policy change.
Current Litigation on the State Department Pause
A current challenge to the State Department’s pause is CLINIC v. Rubio, filed in the Southern District of New York in February 2026.
In CLINIC v. Rubio, plaintiffs challenge the DOS pause as an unlawful nationality-based suspension of immigrant visa processing that exceeds statutory public-charge authority. The government is expected to rely heavily on executive authority under INA § 212(f) and Trump v. Hawaii, making these cases more difficult than the USCIS litigation.
What This Means If You Are Impacted by the Pause
The USCIS Pause
If your immigration application is pending with USCIS and you are from one of the affected countries, recent federal court rulings are an important development. Multiple judges have now found that USCIS cannot impose an indefinite freeze on immigration benefit adjudications based solely on nationality, calling the policy likely unlawful and arbitrary.
However, the practical effect of these rulings still depends on whether you are part of the litigation or covered by an existing court order. So far, courts have mainly ordered USCIS to resume processing for the plaintiffs involved in the lawsuits rather than issuing a nationwide injunction for all affected applicants.
Because of this, many individuals with delayed cases are joining existing group or class-action lawsuits or pursuing individual legal remedies such as mandamus actions. The right strategy depends on factors such as the type of application, the length of the delay, whether the case is with USCIS or a U.S. consulate abroad, and the specific harm caused by the pause.
While the courts have clearly signaled strong skepticism toward the policy, relief is still developing case by case rather than through one sweeping nationwide order. Until broader relief is formally extended, many applicants will still need individualized legal strategies to move their cases forward.
State Department Pause
If your immigrant visa case is pending with the U.S. Department of State and you are from one of the affected countries, the legal landscape remains more complicated. Unlike the USCIS pause, which has already faced multiple adverse court rulings, challenges to the State Department’s visa processing freeze are still developing and have produced narrower relief so far.
The primary lawsuit, CLINIC v. Rubio, argues that the government cannot indefinitely suspend immigrant visa processing based on nationality without violating federal immigration and administrative law. However, courts have not yet issued a nationwide order requiring the State Department to resume processing for all affected applicants.
As a result, relief currently remains largely limited to plaintiffs involved in the litigation. Many affected individuals are therefore considering additional options, including joining ongoing lawsuits or pursuing mandamus actions based on unreasonable delay.
Consular processing cases also face additional legal hurdles because courts traditionally give the State Department broader discretion in visa adjudications. That can make challenges slower and more limited than cases involving USCIS adjudications inside the United States.
Even so, the litigation remains significant because it reflects growing judicial skepticism toward blanket nationality-based processing freezes and may create broader pathways for relief over time.
Contact an attorney
If your application is affected by either pause, the right next step is understanding exactly where your case stands and what options are available to you. The legal landscape is shifting, and the strategy that makes sense depends on your specific situation, the type of application you filed, and how long your case has been delayed. Contact EO Immigration at info@eoimmigration.com or call (305) 391-2105 to schedule a consultation.
