A federal judge in Manhattan threw out the United States immigrant visa freeze on August 21, ending a seven-month bar on permanent residency applications from 75 countries. Ten of them run citizenship by investment (CBI) programs.
Two more federal actions surfaced within four days, one attaching a fee above US$103,000 to skilled worker petitions. The other targets as many as 200,000 visitor visas.
A court restores immigrant visa access for ten CBI countries
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York ruled in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio that the State Department had exceeded its statutory authority. She called the policy “patently unlawful” in a 61-page opinion.
Federal law bars discrimination by nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas, and Vargas found the freeze in direct conflict with it. Her order wipes out the policy and reopens every refusal that rested on it alone. Consular officers must go back to judging applicants one at a time.
The administration leaned on Trump v. Hawaii, the 2018 decision upholding a version of the first-term travel ban. Vargas distinguished it. That case turned on presidential authority over entry, while this one turned on whether consular officers could refuse eligible applicants by passport.
David Lesperance, Managing Director at Lesperance & Associates, calls the outcome “a correct and completely predictable decision,” one that recognizes consular officers must weigh eligibility case by case.
Antigua and Barbuda, Cambodia, Dominica, Egypt, Grenada, Jordan, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Sierra Leone all sat on the January list. Saint Vincent made it with no program in operation to restrict.
Washington had already hit Antigua and Dominica with partial travel bans in December, naming their citizenship programs as the reason. January’s freeze went wider, resting on a public charge rationale that flagged nationals of all 75 countries as a likely drain on public resources. Every CBI jurisdiction in the Eastern Caribbean landed on it.
EB-5 investors from the 75 countries lost their pathway alongside family reunification and diversity lottery applicants. Category made no difference; the freeze swallowed every immigrant visa class.
State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott hit back through Fox News Digital, calling the decision a “rogue judge’s misguided opinion” that wrongfully undermines the Secretary of State’s authority. An appeal would go to the Second Circuit, where the government could also seek a stay.
A second court agreed four days later. Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction in Storie v. Trump on August 25, finding the plaintiffs likely to win. That order reaches only them, leaving the Manhattan vacatur as the operative one.
DHS proposes a US$103,265 fee on cap-subject H-1B petitions
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 25 under docket USCIS-2026-0298. It would attach a US$103,265 fee to every H-1B petition that falls under the annual cap, payable at filing and stacking on top of existing fees.
Petitions under the 20,000 advanced degree exemption would carry the fee too. Cap-exempt filings from universities, affiliated nonprofits, and research organizations would escape it, as would workers moving between employers on existing H-1B status.
Nothing takes effect on publication. Comments close on September 24, and DHS must answer them before it issues any final rule. April 2027 is the earliest a finished fee could reach cap-selected petitions.
Revenue would run to approximately US$8.8 billion a year, funding adjudication, vetting, immigration court operations, and consular processing across six agencies. DHS expects a major economic impact on 11,051 small entities, 76% of small cap filers in FY 2025.
The proposal stands legally separate from Proclamation 10973. That September 2025 order imposed a US$100,000 payment on H-1B petitions for beneficiaries abroad. Judge Leo Sorokin vacated it on June 8, along with the documents implementing it, calling the payment a tax Congress never authorized.
On July 24, the First Circuit refused the government’s request to stay that ruling, finding it had not shown a likelihood of success on appeal. USCIS cannot collect the US$100,000 payment while the case runs. Absent an extension, it lapses 12 months after taking effect on September 21, 2025.
Should both survive, they stack. Under the rule, a petitioner owing a proclamation payment and the proposed fee would pay both, lifting the combined bill above US$203,000.
Neil Bradley, chief policy officer at the US Chamber of Commerce, warns the proposal “will make it cost-prohibitive for even more U.S. employers” to use the program.
Skilled worker visa holders make up a large share of US-based EB-5 applicants. Agency guidance from May restricting adjustment of status already narrowed that pool.
A reported plan to revoke 200,000 visitor visas
The State Department is preparing to revoke B1 and B2 visas that it issued between 2016 and 2026 to holders who later sought asylum, according to the Associated Press. As many as 200,000 people would fall within it. Washington has confirmed the policy but not its scope, and the figure rests on documents the wire service obtained and two officials who spoke anonymously.
Revocation would not trigger immediate deportation. Most people with pending asylum cases would shift into a different category and lose their standing as business or tourist travelers.
Pigott says the department is working with DHS to identify foreigners who arrive as short-term visitors “but then file for asylum to stay here permanently.”
Authority runs through section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision lets a consular officer or the Secretary of State revoke a visa at any time, at their own discretion. Congress amended it in 2004 to foreclose judicial review, except inside a removal proceeding where the revocation supplies the sole ground.
B1 and B2 are the same categories Washington targeted with its visa bond program, which named citizenship by investment without a residency requirement among its selection criteria.
Lesperance sees firmer footing here than the ban enjoyed. Revocation “addresses a prior consular decision that each applicant overcame the intending immigrant presumption,” he argues, and the later asylum claim “showed their real intention to immigrate.”
He expects a better outcome this time. The blanket cancellation policy “has a better chance of not being struck down as an abrogation of consular authority,” in his reading. A caveat follows: “Time will tell whether the courts uphold this second order.”
Mobility turns into a resilience problem
Mohamed Bennis, Senior Vice President at Arton Capital, reads the ruling as a warning about concentration. “This ruling is a reminder of how dangerous it is to build your mobility around a single point of failure.”
Governments are tightening rules, reassessing visa privileges, and “using borders more actively as instruments of domestic and foreign policy,” he argues. Rights that looked stable a few years ago can now vanish inside a news cycle.
One court win does not reverse that. “The important point is not whether one specific restriction survives a court challenge. It is that mobility itself is becoming less predictable.”
Anyone banking on yesterday’s access, Bennis warns, hands the outcome to decisions they cannot influence. “In today’s environment, mobility is becoming a resilience issue as much as an immigration issue.”
