Skip to main contentSkip to On this page
togetherward
Beta

Policy watch · Updated August 2026

The 75-country visa pause was struck down. What changes now?

On August 21, a federal court set aside the State Department's 75-country immigrant-visa policy and sent refusals based only on that policy back for a new lawful decision. Since then, other courts have ordered narrower relief for specific plaintiffs, and on August 26 the CLINIC plaintiffs asked the New York court to enforce its judgment. Meanwhile, the Department's February 2 public pause page remains posted, and the Department says immigrant visa appointments worldwide are being adjusted while consular officers complete public-charge training. None of this automatically approves a visa or tells you when your case will move.

Written from official U.S. government sources. Last reviewed August 2026. Sources and limits.

Where this stands

Reviewed · 21 of 21 court and official sources checked by a person · See verification

  • CourtCourt ruling

    Policy vacated; enforcement motion now pending.

    The August 21 CLINIC judgment set the 75-country policy aside and sent policy-only refusals back for lawful re-adjudication. On August 26, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion asking the court to enforce that judgment. The motion is a filing, not a new ruling.

    Evidence: Court records: the August 21 opinion and order, the August 24 partial judgment, and the plaintiffs' August 26 motion.

  • State Department public pageStill published

    The February 2 pause notice remains online and still says issuance is paused.

    The public page has not been updated to reflect the August 21 judgment. A page remaining online is not the same thing as the vacated policy remaining legally valid.

    Evidence: The published Department of State notice itself, re-read on August 23.

  • Consular operationsOperational update

    Immigrant visa appointments are being adjusted worldwide for officer training.

    State Department spokesperson statements reported by Reuters and AFP describe a global training initiative on public-charge screening and say appointments are being adjusted to accommodate it. Togetherward has not found a public Department notice or cable explaining the training or its implementation.

    Evidence: Attributed agency statement, not published guidance.

  • Your caseUnconfirmed

    No automatic issuance and no universal timeline.

    Do not assume either that your existing appointment will proceed unchanged or that your visa will now be issued. Watch for direct communication from your embassy or consulate and check your appointment status before making non-refundable travel plans.

    Evidence: Nothing we have read speaks to an individual case. Only your post can.

Affected-country issuance independently verified after Aug. 21: None by Togetherward yet.That means we have not found a case we can independently verify; it does not prove that no visa has been issued anywhere.

  • UnconfirmedNo appeal and no stay were verified in either case. Partial judgment under Rule 54(b) was entered in CLINIC on August 24, 2026. We verified no notice of appeal and no stay — a court order that would temporarily pause a ruling — in CLINIC or in Storie. Any of those could still be filed, and a stay would change what an order does in practice.
  • Narrow reliefThree of the four orders reach only the people who sued. The July 31 De Moura Gomes order requires individualized re-adjudication for that family, the August 7 Sayani order enjoins the policy for two named applicants, and the August 25 Storie order runs to the Storie plaintiffs. Only the August 21 CLINIC order acts on the policy itself.

This page separates the legal state of the policy from what posts have been told to do. It is not legal advice and cannot tell you what happens in your case.

The current read, source by source

Official fact

Origin: unknown or unavailable. Not shownWe could not confirm this against a current official source, so we are not showing a value.Reason: our last check of the official sources is out of date.Sources for this page

Each line below names the kind of source it rests on. The anchors are the opinion and order filed August 21, 2026, which vacated the policy and set aside refusals resting solely on it, the Storie opinion and order filed August 25, 2026, which granted relief to the plaintiffs in that case, the plaintiffs' emergency enforcement motion filed August 26, 2026, which is a request to the court and not a ruling, and the State Department pause page as re-read on August 23, which still says applicants may submit applications, attend interviews, and keep visas already issued.

  • Has a court set the policy aside?

    Current read
    Yes. The August 21, 2026 opinion and order vacated the policy and set aside refusals made solely under it.
    Evidence class
    Court opinion

  • What did the August 25 Storie order add?

    Current read
    Plaintiff-specific relief: the pause may not be applied to the Storie plaintiffs, affected queue positions must be restored, and plaintiff applications refused because of the pause must be adjudicated within no more than 30 days. A compliance report is due September 8, 2026.
    Evidence class
    Court opinion

  • Does the 30-day deadline apply to everyone?

    Current read
    No. It runs to the plaintiffs in Storie v. Trump, not to every applicant affected by the policy.
    Evidence class
    Court opinion, read for its scope

  • What did the plaintiffs file on August 26?

    Current read
    An emergency motion asking the CLINIC court to enforce the August 21 order and judgment and to hold an expedited status conference, on the argument that the Department has not implemented the vacatur. The court has not ruled on it.
    Evidence class
    Court filing — a party's request and position, not a holding

  • Why are immigrant visa appointments being adjusted worldwide?

    Current read
    Department spokesperson statements reported by Reuters and AFP say the Department is running global public-charge training for consular officers and adjusting immigrant visa appointments to accommodate it. We have found no published Department notice or cable describing it.
    Evidence class
    Attributed agency statement — reported, not published guidance

  • Is the pause notice still posted?

    Current read
    Yes. As re-read on August 23, the notice is unchanged and still carries its February 2, 2026 stamp.
    Evidence class
    Official agency source

  • Has the agency published anything implementing the orders?

    Current read
    Not that we have verified. No cable, notice, or post announcement giving effect to them has been read by us.
    Evidence class
    Unverified — absence of a source, not proof of inaction

  • Is there a judgment, appeal, or stay?

    Current read
    Partial judgment under Rule 54(b) was entered in CLINIC on August 24, 2026. No notice of appeal and no stay were verified in either case. Any of them could still be filed.
    Evidence class
    Court docket

  • Does this mean a visa will now be issued?

    Current read
    No. Vacatur removes the policy. It does not order issuance, set a date, or displace other lawful grounds, including Presidential Proclamation 10998.
    Evidence class
    Court opinion, read for its remedy

  • Do the earlier orders still matter?

    Current read
    Yes. De Moura Gomes (July 31) and Sayani (August 7) granted relief tied to the applicants before those courts, and neither vacated the policy.
    Evidence class
    Court opinions

  • Does the September 18 DHS rule change any of this?

    Current read
    No. The final rule says it does not revise State Department standards or processes for consular adjudication.
    Evidence class
    Official final rule

Current status snapshot, with the kind of source behind each line

What this means for an affected case

Togetherward analysis

Origin: Togetherward explanation. Togetherward explanationOur reading of the official sources, not something an agency says.

The ruling is real. It is not the same thing as a case moving. The policy can no longer be used as a lawful reason to refuse a visa. Refusals where the policy was the only reason were set aside and sent back for a new decision. What nobody has published is how or when posts will act on that. Nothing here can tell you what your post will do.

  • If a case was refused and the policy was the only reason for refusal, the August 21 order sets that refusal aside and remands it — sends it back for a new lawful decision. Whether a particular refusal rested only on that ground is a legal question about the wording of the refusal notice. A licensed immigration attorney can read yours; this page cannot.
  • If a case is waiting on issuance, no source cited here publishes a date, a queue position, or an order of processing. The absence of a published implementation notice is a fact about what we can verify. It is not a prediction either way.
  • If an interview is scheduled, do not cancel it yourself because of a general news report. Reported spokesperson statements say immigrant visa appointments are being adjusted worldwide during consular training, and that posts contact affected applicants directly. Check for direct messages from your embassy or consulate and confirm your appointment status before travelling or spending anything you cannot get back.
  • If a refusal cited another ground as well, including Presidential Proclamation 10998 or an individual public-charge determination, that ground is untouched by these orders.
  • If you are a plaintiff in Storie v. Trump, the August 25 order applies to you directly: queue positions moved by the pause must be restored, and applications refused because of the pause must be adjudicated within no more than 30 days. If you are not a plaintiff in that case, the deadline does not run to your application.
  • If a deadline, an expiring medical, or joining a lawsuit is in play, that is case-specific and time-sensitive, and it belongs with a licensed immigration attorney rather than with a policy page.

The useful thing to do with this update is to record it: the date the order was filed, the date you last read the State Department notice, and any written communication your post sends. If posts do begin re-adjudicating, the paperwork you kept from before will be what you are asked about.

Check whether a country was named on the published list

Official fact

Origin: unknown or unavailable. Not shownWe could not confirm this against a current official source, so we are not showing a value.Reason: our last check of the official sources is out of date.Sources for this page

This is the list of 75 countries as published by the State Department, linked in the sources for this section. It is the list the vacated policy used. Searching it tells you one thing only: whether a country appears on that published list. It does not tell you that a pause is currently being enforced against that country, or what any post will do.

Nothing you type here is sent anywhere or recorded. This only searches the list published on this page.

75 countries are named on the published list. Type a name above, or open the full list below.

Show all 75 countries, alphabetically
  • Afghanistan
  • Albania
  • Algeria
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Armenia
  • Azerbaijan
  • Bahamas
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belize
  • Bhutan
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Brazil
  • Burma
  • Cambodia
  • Cameroon
  • Cape Verde
  • Colombia
  • Cote d’Ivoire
  • Cuba
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo
  • Dominica
  • Egypt
  • Eritrea
  • Ethiopia
  • Fiji
  • The Gambia
  • Georgia
  • Ghana
  • Grenada
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Haiti
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Jamaica
  • Jordan
  • Kazakhstan
  • Kosovo
  • Kuwait
  • Kyrgyz Republic
  • Laos
  • Lebanon
  • Liberia
  • Libya
  • Moldova
  • Mongolia
  • Montenegro
  • Morocco
  • Nepal
  • Nicaragua
  • Nigeria
  • North Macedonia
  • Pakistan
  • Republic of the Congo
  • Russia
  • Rwanda
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Senegal
  • Sierra Leone
  • Somalia
  • South Sudan
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Tanzania
  • Thailand
  • Togo
  • Tunisia
  • Uganda
  • Uruguay
  • Uzbekistan
  • Yemen
  • A country here was one of the 75 covered by the policy the CLINIC court ordered vacated on August 21, 2026. The State Department notice carrying the list has not been updated since. Appearing here is a fact about the published list, not proof of a currently enforceable pause.
  • Being on the list does not decide what happens in a particular case. The passport actually used, the visa category, and the post handling the case all matter.
  • The State Department page says dual nationals are exempt when they apply with a valid passport from a country that is not on the list.
  • The same page describes a case-by-case exception route for children being adopted by Americans, including a National Interest Exception where applicable.

What an affected couple can and cannot do

Togetherward analysis

Origin: Togetherward explanation. Togetherward explanationOur reading of the official sources, not something an agency says.

The honest split is short. Almost everything in the first column is record-keeping, and almost everything in the second is outside any applicant's control.

  • Keep applying, and check your appointment status and direct messages from your post before travelling to an interview. Appointments are reported to be under adjustment worldwide during consular training.

    You cannot
    Make issuance happen. Vacating the policy does not order a visa to be issued.

  • Follow the instructions your embassy or consulate sends you, and keep a scheduled appointment unless the post tells you otherwise. Never cancel it yourself on the strength of a news report alone.

    You cannot
    Assume a post has already acted on the August 21 order. No implementation guidance has been published where we can read it.

  • Preserve every written notice exactly as it arrived, with the date it arrived.

    You cannot
    Ask for the public-charge bond yourself. The State Department notice says a consular officer notifies selected applicants.

  • Record what each source said and the date you read it, rather than what a forum said it meant.

    You cannot
    Get a resumption date. No source cited here publishes one, and no one can tell you when yours will move.

  • Take anything case-specific — a deadline, a refusal, an expiring medical, joining a lawsuit — to a licensed immigration attorney.

    You cannot
    Get an answer from this page on whether the pause, an exception, or an order applies to your case. That is a legal question about your facts.

What is available to an affected couple, and what is not

Keep this update with your case

Suggestion

Origin: suggested action. Suggested actionA way to organise your own case. Optional, and required by nobody.

None of this is required, and none of it changes what a post decides. It is only a way to stop the same update being re-read from scratch every week.

  • Record the embassy or consulate communication you received, with the date it arrived.
  • Attach the notice itself, in the wording it arrived in, rather than a summary of it.
  • Give the next step an owner, so one partner is not silently carrying it.
  • Keep the source you read beside the entry, so both partners are reading the same record.

What would change this

On August 21, 2026 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held the policy behind the 75-country immigrant visa issuance pause contrary to law, vacated it, and set aside refusals made solely under it. Partial judgment on those claims was entered on August 24. On August 25 a second court, in Storie v. Trump, ordered plaintiff-specific relief, including adjudication of plaintiff applications refused because of the pause within no more than 30 days; that deadline runs to those plaintiffs, not to everyone. On August 26 the CLINIC plaintiffs filed an emergency motion asking the court to enforce its judgment — a filing, not a ruling. The operational layer has not caught up: the Department of State pause notice, re-read on August 23, still carries its February 2, 2026 stamp; we have verified no agency notice, cable, or post announcement implementing either order, and no appeal or stay. Separately, Department spokesperson statements reported by Reuters and AFP say a global public-charge training initiative is under way and immigrant visa appointments are being adjusted worldwide to accommodate it.

  • What the CLINIC court does with the plaintiffs' August 26 emergency enforcement motion, and what the government says about the Department's implementation of the August 21 judgment and the worldwide training initiative.
  • Any docket order in the primary record setting or changing an expedited response deadline or a status conference on the enforcement motion. We will not publish a schedule we have not read in the record.
  • The Storie compliance status report the Secretary of State must file by September 8, 2026.
  • The joint status letter the CLINIC court directed the parties to file on the remaining claims, due September 11, 2026.
  • Any notice of appeal or motion to stay in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio (1:26-cv-00858, S.D.N.Y.) or Storie v. Trump (1:26-cv-00567, D.D.C.). A stay would suspend an order's practical effect.
  • Any change to the February 2, 2026 Department of State pause notice, or a new public Department notice, cable, or post-level announcement — including anything published about the training initiative.
  • The first affected-country immigrant visa issuance Togetherward can independently verify after the August 21 vacatur.
  • The preliminary-injunction and class-certification motions in Syed v. Trump (1:26-cv-02214, D.D.C.), where briefing is joined and nothing has been decided.
  • The State Department public-charge bond pilot page, which describes a case-by-case route initiated by a consular officer.

Situations like this can change between checks — the official sources are the record, not this page.

Common questions

Showing all 26 questions.

Scope and affected applicants

Is the 75-country immigrant visa pause still in effect?
There are two layers to that. Legally, the policy behind the pause was vacated by a federal court on August 21, 2026, and refusals resting solely on it were set aside. A second court granted plaintiff-specific relief in Storie v. Trump on August 25, 2026. Operationally, the State Department pause notice is unchanged as of the last-checked date shown at the top of this page, and no published guidance describes how posts will give effect to those orders. This page reports both rather than collapsing them.
Does this pause affect tourist visas?
The State Department says no. This pause is specific to immigrant visa applicants, while tourist visas are nonimmigrant visas. Other visa restrictions or post-specific operational limits can still exist independently.
Does the pause apply to K-1 fiancé(e) visas?
The page describes the pause as specific to immigrant visa applicants, and K-1 is formally a nonimmigrant visa category even though it leads towards permanent residence. We will not make a broader promise than that: separate screening rules, post operations, or other policies can still affect a K-1 case.
Are dual nationals exempt?
The State Department page says dual nationals are exempt when they apply with a valid passport from a country that is not on the list. Whether that describes a particular applicant depends on the passports and the application actually used.
Are adoption cases exempt?
The State Department page says children being adopted by Americans can qualify for an exception, including a National Interest Exception where applicable, and should continue the normal application and interview process. It describes case-by-case treatment rather than a blanket exemption for every adoption matter.

Court cases

What did the August 21, 2026 order in CLINIC v. Rubio do?
The court held the policy contrary to law, vacated it — set the policy aside — set aside visa refusals where the policy was the only reason for refusal, and remanded those applications, meaning it sent them back for a new lawful decision. It also directed a partial judgment under Rule 54(b) and a joint status letter from the parties by September 11, 2026. Earlier orders protected specific applicants who had sued; this order acts on the policy itself.
What did the August 25, 2026 order in Storie v. Trump do?
The court granted a preliminary injunction in part. The Secretary of State may not apply the pause to the plaintiffs in that case, must promptly restore any plaintiff's position in the processing queue where the pause moved it, and must complete adjudication of any plaintiff application that was refused because of the pause promptly and within no more than 30 days — including issuing a visa to a plaintiff who would have received one absent the pause. The Secretary must file a compliance status report by September 8, 2026. The relief runs to the Storie plaintiffs, not to every affected applicant.
Has the government appealed or obtained a stay?
None was verified on either docket as read on the dates shown in the sources on this page. In CLINIC a partial judgment under Rule 54(b) was entered on August 24, and we verified no notice of appeal and no stay — a court order that would temporarily pause a ruling. In Storie we verified nothing after the August 25 order. Any of those could still be filed, and a stay would change what an order does in practice.
Does the vacatur mean a visa will now be issued?
No. Vacating a policy removes it as a basis for refusal. It does not order that any visa be issued, set a date for a case to move, or displace other lawful grounds a consular officer may apply, including Presidential Proclamation 10998, which this order did not address.
Did De Moura Gomes v. Rubio lift the pause for everyone?
No. The court declared the policy unlawful as applied to the plaintiffs, enjoined its use against the principal plaintiff's application, and ordered individualised re-adjudication. The opinion expressly notes that the plaintiffs did not seek nationwide vacatur. That is meaningful relief, but it is not a nationwide restart.
Does the De Moura Gomes decision mean those plaintiffs will receive visas?
No. The court ordered a lawful, individualised re-adjudication. It did not compel a particular visa outcome, and it left the consular officer free to request additional information or apply another lawful ground.
What is the August 26 CLINIC filing?
It is an emergency motion filed by the plaintiffs asking Judge Vargas to enforce the August 21 order and judgment and to hold an expedited status conference. The plaintiffs argue that the Department of State has not implemented the vacatur and point to continued immigrant visa interruptions. A motion is a request to the court, not a ruling. The court must act before the filing itself changes anyone's legal position.
What are CLINIC v. Rubio and Storie v. Trump?
They are two separate federal challenges to the same policy. In Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio (1:26-cv-00858, S.D.N.Y.) the court vacated the policy on August 21, 2026 and set aside refusals resting solely on it. In Storie v. Trump (1:26-cv-00567, D.D.C.) the court granted a preliminary injunction on August 25, 2026 that applies to the plaintiffs in that case. Posture and relief are read from the orders themselves; nothing is inferred from a filing or a briefing schedule.
Does the Storie 30-day deadline apply to everyone?
No. The August 25 preliminary injunction applies to the plaintiffs in Storie v. Trump. The court ordered 30-day adjudication for Storie plaintiff applications that had already been refused because of the pause. CLINIC v. Rubio is the separate case in which the court ordered the policy itself vacated.
Did the Dorcas ruling end the 75-country immigrant visa pause?
No. It vacated separate USCIS benefit-processing policies. It did not set aside the State Department's 75-country visa-issuance policy.
Why can a court vacate the policy while the pause page stays posted?
A court order and an agency website are different things. Vacatur takes effect as a matter of law when the court orders it; updating published guidance and instructing posts is an administrative step the agency takes separately, and it can lag, be appealed, or be stayed. We report the order and the page separately, with the date each was read, rather than assuming one has followed the other.

Interviews and existing visas

Why are immigrant visa interviews being rescheduled worldwide?
Department of State spokesperson statements reported by Reuters and AFP say the Department is conducting global public-charge training for consular officers and that immigrant visa appointments are being adjusted to accommodate it. Togetherward has not found a public Department guidance page or cable explaining the training, its duration, or how it interacts with the August 21 judgment.
Should I still go to my interview?
Do not cancel an appointment yourself solely because of a general news report. Check direct messages from your embassy or consulate and your appointment status before travel. The Department says posts communicate appointment changes directly to applicants, and current reports say immigrant visa appointments are being adjusted during training.
Can affected applicants still submit applications and attend interviews?
Yes, according to the State Department pause page. It says affected immigrant visa applicants may submit applications, attend interviews, and continue to be scheduled. That does not mean a visa can currently be issued under the posted policy.
Were already-valid immigrant visas revoked?
No. The State Department page says no immigrant visas were revoked as part of this guidance. Questions about admission at the border are handled by DHS and sit outside what the pause page decides.

Public-charge bonds and the DHS rule

What is the public-charge bond pilot?
It is a State Department procedure under which a consular officer may require a selected immigrant visa applicant to apply for a public-charge bond with USCIS. The bond is described as an additional possible way to overcome a denial based only on the public-charge ground when the applicant is otherwise eligible.
Can an applicant request a public-charge bond on their own?
Not under the procedure the State Department describes. The page says applicants selected for the process will be notified by a consular officer. Filing without that notification is not presented as an available route.
Does an approved public-charge bond mean the visa will be issued?
No. The State Department says a consular officer may issue a visa previously denied under the public-charge ground if the bond is approved and the applicant is otherwise eligible. Other issues can still prevent issuance.
Does the DHS rule taking effect on September 18 end the 75-country pause?
No. The DHS final rule changes how DHS administers the public-charge ground for admission and adjustment of status. The rule expressly says it does not revise State Department standards or processes for consular visa adjudication, so it should not be read as a reopening of issuance under the pause.

What to do, and how often this is reviewed

What should someone with an affected case do now?
Follow the instructions from the embassy or consulate, keep scheduled appointments unless the post says otherwise, preserve every written notice, and get case-specific advice from a licensed immigration attorney when a deadline, a refusal, an expiring medical, or litigation is involved. Togetherward can organise events and sources; it cannot decide how a court order applies to your case.
How often does Togetherward review this page?
Two different things happen at two different rhythms, and we keep them separate. A person re-reads the whole page against its sources at least every seven days while the policy and the litigation are active — that is the reviewed date shown on the page, and only a person can move it. Separately, we aim to check the cited sources for changes each day while this stays active. That check is manual today, and the source-check status shows the last recorded check and says when it is overdue. A check is not a review, so it never advances the reviewed date. If a cited source changes, the page is marked for immediate review. If the human review window is missed, the page stays reachable but is visibly flagged and kept out of search results until a person re-reads the sources.

Related guides

Pages in this library that continue or qualify what you just read.

How Togetherward helps

Suggestion

If this affects your case, the useful work is recording it rather than refreshing it. Togetherward can hold the embassy communication you received, the original notice attached with the date and wording it arrived in, the follow-up one of you owns, and a journal entry linked to the source it came from — so both partners are reading the same record instead of two different memories of it.

In Togetherward

Sign in to your case to continue where this leaves off.

Sign in to continue
Sources and limits

This page describes published government policy and court proceedings in general terms. It is not legal advice, it does not decide whether a court order covers a particular applicant, and it does not predict visa issuance or admission.

Before you read on

  • After the interview
  • NVC and sponsorship
  • Medical and interview preparation
  • CR-1 / IR-1 (Form I-130)
  • F2A (spouse of a permanent resident)

Related context, not directly covered: K-1 (Form I-129F), K-2 (child of a K-1 applicant).

Who this is for
Couples with an immigrant visa case involving a national of one of the 75 countries named by the Department of State, and anyone trying to tell a real change from a headline.
Stage it covers
Any stage of an immigrant visa case — document collection, NVC, interview preparation, or waiting on issuance — while the pause is published. Written for immigrant visas; K-1/K-2 fiancé(e) cases are a nonimmigrant route this pause is not written for.
What it helps you do
Separate what the State Department currently publishes from what a court has actually ordered, and see when a person last read each source.
What this page cannot tell you
  • Whether the pause applies to your case. That depends on the passport used, the visa category, and the post handling the case.
  • Whether any court order covers you. A case-specific order covers the people named in it.
  • Whether a visa will be issued, or when.
  • Whether you should file anything in response. That is a question for a licensed immigration attorney.

Last reviewed and verification status

Last reviewed
A person last re-read this page against its sources on . We aim to re-read it every 7 days.
Out of date — past the review interval and its grace period; kept out of search results.
Source-check status
Sources last checked for changes on . The last recorded source check was 12 days ago, past this page's day watch, so we cannot show it as currently watched. The manual source-check goal is every day. This page tracks a live pause and live litigation, which is why it has a one-day source-check goal while that stays active. A detected change flags this page for immediate re-review; a check is not a review, and it never moves the last-reviewed date above.
Source check overdue — the sources have not been watched inside the window.
Verification status of the sources behind this page
21 of 21 sources have been checked by a person. Nothing is awaiting verification.

Verified (21)

How we put this page together

Togetherward analysis

This page is built from the Department of State pause page and public-charge bond pilot page, the court's opinion in De Moura Gomes v. Rubio, the August 7 order in Sayani v. U.S. Department of State as filed in the CLINIC docket, the DHS final rule as published in the Federal Register, the dockets in the broader challenges, and — for the separate USCIS lane — Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194, the June 5 and July 15 orders in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, and the USCIS alert describing how it is complying with that judgment. Each claim is labelled by what kind of source establishes it: an agency page, a published rule, a court holding, or a docket entry recording that something was filed. Anything that is our own reading of how those pieces fit together is marked as Togetherward analysis. A person re-reads every source on the date shown at the top of the page.

What we did not include

  • Any prediction about when issuance resumes, in general or for a particular country.
  • Any reading of whether a court order covers a particular applicant.
  • Law-firm commentary, forums, community trackers, and news summaries. They are not treated as authority for what a government page or a court order says.
  • Any claim that a docket filing, a briefing schedule, or a hearing date is a ruling.

Who wrote this, who checked it, and how current it is

Author
The Togetherward editorial team. The people who build Togetherward. We are not attorneys and we do not give legal advice.
Reviewer
Reviewed in-house by a second person on the Togetherward team. No attorney, agency, or government office has reviewed or endorsed this page.
Scope of review
Review scope: a second person on the Togetherward editorial team re-read this page against the official pages listed below and confirmed that every process statement still matches them. That is what our review covers, and it is described in full in our editorial standards. It does not assess legal accuracy, eligibility, or how anything applies to a particular case — for that, speak with a qualified immigration attorney.
Dates
Published · last materially reviewed . We aim to re-read this page against its sources every 7 days.
Current state: Out of date — past the review interval and its grace period; kept out of search results.
Automation and AI
Automation and AI: an AI assistant drafted structural first passes and suggested wording for parts of this page, and automated checks flag broken links and dates that have gone unreviewed. No AI system reads government sites and updates this page on its own, and nothing an AI produced is published unread. A named person on the editorial team compared every process statement here against the official pages listed below and is answerable for what it says.
Primary sources
Process steps come only from official U.S. government publishers. We do not use law-firm blogs, forums, or crowd-sourced timelines as authority.
Dates for each source are in the last reviewed and verification status section above.
What the labels in this guide mean
  • Official factStated by a U.S. government publisher on the source page we cite.
  • Togetherward analysisOur reading of the official sources, not something an agency says.
  • SuggestionA way to organise your own case. Optional, and not a requirement.
Limitations
  • This is an explanation of a published government process, not legal advice, and not a prediction about your case.
  • Figures that move — processing ranges, Visa Bulletin dates, fees, form editions, interview availability — are described rather than reproduced here, so you read the current number at the source.
  • USCIS, the National Visa Center, the embassy, or the consular officer may ask for something this page does not mention.
  • Whether the pause, an exemption, or any court order applies to a particular applicant is not decided here. That depends on the passport used, the visa category, the post, and — for litigation — who the order names.
  • No date for resumption of issuance is published by any source cited here, and none appears here.
  • Court dockets are read for what was filed and ordered. A filing, a briefing schedule, or a hearing date is never reported as relief.
Commercial independence
Commercial independence: nobody pays to appear on this page. There are no sponsors, no advertising, no referral fees, no affiliate links, and no paid placement of any attorney, agency, or service. Togetherward makes money from couples who use the product, and a commercial relationship cannot change what this page says, when it was last reviewed, whether it is flagged as out of date, or whether it stays in search results.
Corrections
If something here is out of date or wrong, tell us and we will fix it and update the review date. Reports go to a review queue — a person checks each one against the official source before this page changes. You can also email support@togetherward.app or use the support page.