US judge blocks Trump's green card freeze for 75 countries; here's what it means for Indian applicants
A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s policy freezing green card applications from nationals of 75 countries over concerns they could become dependent on public benefits is unlawful, marking a setback for the administration’s immigration agenda.
In a memorandum opinion issued on July 31, US District Judge Amit Mehta of the District of Columbia held that the State Department’s “public charge” policy exceeded the authority granted under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The policy, introduced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in January, had effectively stalled immigrant visa processing for applicants from 75 countries, including Nigeria, Colombia, Russia and Egypt.
Judge says State Department exceeded its authority
The case was brought by Newton De Moura Gomes, a Brazilian national whose application for an immigrant visa through the EB-5 investor program was halted under the policy. Gomes argued that the State Department had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by unlawfully withholding a decision on his visa application and adopting a policy contrary to federal law.
Also read: H-1B visa renewals could cost more as Trump administration plans new fee; Indians likely to be impacted
Judge Mehta agreed, ruling that the Secretary of State had exercised authority that Congress had expressly withheld under the INA.
In his opinion, Mehta wrote that the policy allowed the Secretary of State to control individual visa determinations, even though the law assigns that responsibility to consular officers reviewing individual cases.
He also rejected the government’s argument that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability prevented the court from hearing the challenge, finding that the lawsuit targeted a department-wide policy rather than an individual visa decision.
The court ordered the State Department to stop applying the policy to Gomes’ application and to adjudicate his immigrant visa once a consular officer determines it is complete.
Policy affected family- and employment-based applicants
The policy primarily affected family-sponsored immigrant visa applicants and some employment-based green card seekers from the 75 listed countries. While the administration argued that the measure was intended to prevent future immigrants from becoming dependent on public assistance, critics said it effectively halted applications regardless of an applicant’s individual circumstances.
Edward Ramos, an attorney representing Gomes, welcomed the ruling, saying the court recognized that the State Department could not require individual assessments while effectively directing consular officers to deny applications regardless of the outcome.
Also read: Higher deportation risk for migrant children? Thousands in the US face an uncertain future; here’s who could be affected
“The State Department cannot require individualized review and then dictate refusal regardless of the result,” Ramos said in a statement. He added that Congress had entrusted visa decisions to consular officers applying the law to each applicant rather than imposing predetermined outcomes through department-wide policy.
State Department defends screening measures
Responding to the ruling, a State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the ongoing litigation but said the Trump administration was “upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants.”
The decision comes as multiple lawsuits challenging the green card freeze remain pending in federal courts in Washington and New York. It also follows recent action by the Department of Homeland Security, which issued separate final regulations tightening its own public charge policies.
The ruling currently applies to Gomes’ case, though it is expected to be closely watched as other legal challenges to the policy move forward.
India not among affected countries
The policy applied to applicants from 75 countries, including Nigeria, Colombia, Russia and Egypt. India was not among the countries identified as being covered by the State Department’s public charge policy, meaning Indian family- and employment-based green card applicants were not directly affected by the freeze discussed in the court ruling.