A Brazilian EB 5 investor successfully challenged the Trump administration's 75 country immigrant visa issuance pause. Learn what the federal court ruling means, who may benefit, and whether an individual immigration lawsuit could be an option.
One immigrant challenged the federal government over the Trump administration’s sweeping immigrant visa issuance policy.
And he won relief in his own case.
That development could be extremely important for immigrant visa applicants around the world who are caught in the State Department’s current pause affecting nationals of 75 countries.
But the ruling needs to be understood carefully.
It did not invalidate the entire policy nationwide.
It did not automatically reopen immigrant visa issuance for every affected nationality.
And it did not guarantee that every applicant who files a lawsuit will receive a visa.
What it did demonstrate is potentially just as important.
An individual immigrant visa applicant may be able to challenge the government’s refusal to adjudicate a case when the government substitutes a broad country-based policy for the individualized public charge determination required by federal immigration law.
For some applicants whose cases are otherwise ready for a decision, that could create a meaningful legal strategy.
The United States Department of State currently maintains a policy affecting immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries identified as presenting a higher risk of reliance on United States public benefits.
According to the State Department’s official immigrant visa processing guidance for nationalities considered at high risk of public benefits usage, affected applicants may still submit immigrant visa applications and attend scheduled interviews.
However, immigrant visa issuance is paused for applicants covered by the policy, subject to identified exceptions.
The list includes nationals of countries across Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
For affected families, investors, employees, and intending permanent residents, the distinction between attending a visa interview and receiving the immigrant visa can be enormous.
A person may have completed years of immigration processing.
A petition may already have been approved.
Documents may already have been submitted.
The applicant may already have appeared for the consular interview.
And yet the case may remain unresolved because of the broader State Department policy.
That is the situation that led one Brazilian investor to federal court.
The plaintiff, Newton De Moura Gomes, is a Brazilian national pursuing an immigrant visa through the EB 5 investor program.
The EB 5 program provides a pathway toward lawful permanent residence for qualifying immigrant investors who make the required investment in a United States commercial enterprise and satisfy applicable job creation requirements.
According to reporting on the federal case, De Moura Gomes sued the Department of State after the 75-country policy prevented adjudication of his immigrant visa application.
Rather than simply waiting indefinitely for the broader policy to change, he challenged how the government was applying that policy to him personally.
That distinction became central to the case.
Federal immigration law contains a public charge ground of inadmissibility.
But Congress did not simply say that an applicant can be denied because the applicant comes from a particular country.
The law requires consideration of the individual.
The USCIS Policy Manual on public charge determinations identifies statutory factors that must be considered in the analysis.
Those factors include the applicant’s age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills.
USCIS further explains that the public charge determination is prospective and is based on the totality of the individual’s circumstances.
The agency’s public charge totality of circumstances guidance expressly describes an analysis involving those individual statutory factors.
That individualized statutory structure became extremely important in the Brazilian investor’s lawsuit.
The plaintiff’s position was essentially this.
Congress created an individualized public charge test.
The government therefore could not replace that individualized determination with a categorical assumption that an immigrant visa applicant should not receive a decision simply because the applicant possesses the nationality of one of 75 countries.
That is a fundamentally different proposition from arguing that public charge law itself is invalid.
The case instead focused on whether the government was following the public charge law Congress enacted.
That distinction matters because federal agencies generally must act within the authority Congress gives them.
On July 31, 2026, United States District Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled in De Moura Gomes v. Rubio that the State Department’s policy could not lawfully be used to prevent the individualized adjudication of this plaintiff’s immigrant visa application.
The court ordered the government to adjudicate his case individually.
Published reporting on the ruling explains that Judge Mehta concluded the State Department’s blanket public charge approach conflicted with the individualized framework established by Congress.
For immigrant visa applicants affected by the 75-country policy, that is a significant development.
But its scope must not be exaggerated.
This point is critical.
One plaintiff won.
That does not mean every immigrant visa applicant from all 75 countries automatically won.
The ruling provided relief to the individual who brought the lawsuit.
It did not create an automatic nationwide reopening of immigrant visa issuance.
The State Department’s official guidance still describes the immigrant visa issuance pause for affected nationalities.
Anyone reading headlines about the case should therefore be cautious about assuming that the entire policy disappeared on July 31, 2026.
It did not.
What changed is that there is now a federal court decision demonstrating a possible way to challenge application of the policy to an individual case.
Federal litigation is often highly dependent on the specific facts of the plaintiff’s case.
That can sometimes create opportunities for similarly situated applicants.
Imagine an immigrant visa applicant who has already completed the ordinary process.
The underlying immigrant petition has been approved.
The National Visa Center process has been completed.
The consular interview has already occurred.
The applicant has supplied requested documentation.
No individualized finding of public charge inadmissibility has been made.
Yet the government will not issue or finally adjudicate the visa because the applicant holds the nationality of one of the affected countries.
That factual situation may raise a serious legal question after the De Moura Gomes decision.
The issue becomes whether the government may continue withholding an individual adjudication because of a broad country classification when the governing immigration statute requires consideration of individual statutory factors.
That does not guarantee litigation will succeed.
It does mean the possibility deserves careful review.
Potentially.
Federal lawsuits involving delayed or withheld immigration adjudications can involve several legal theories, depending on the facts.
They may include claims under the Administrative Procedure Act.
In some cases, applicants may pursue mandamus related relief when the government has failed to perform a legally required duty.
The appropriate cause of action depends on what the government has done, what it has failed to do, whether the matter is legally reviewable, the status of the consular case, the procedural history, and the federal court precedent governing the dispute.
Not every immigration delay supports a lawsuit.
Not every visa refusal is reviewable.
And litigation involving consular decisions raises complex jurisdictional doctrines that require experienced federal immigration litigation counsel.
But De Moura Gomes demonstrates that the existence of a consular visa case does not necessarily mean an applicant has no meaningful legal argument.
This ruling may deserve especially close attention from applicants whose cases are already substantially complete.
That can include someone whose immigrant petition has already been approved.
It can include someone whose National Visa Center processing is complete.
It can include someone who has already appeared for an immigrant visa interview.
It can include someone who has submitted every document requested by the consulate.
And it can include someone whose case appears otherwise ready for adjudication but is being withheld because of the 75-country policy.
The further a case has progressed, the easier it may be to identify exactly what government action is being challenged.
That does not mean earlier stage cases can never present litigation issues.
It simply means procedural posture matters.
There is also something notable about the plaintiff being an EB-5 investor.
The EB 5 category is based on investment in a United States commercial enterprise and job creation.
Federal law establishes the EB-5 immigrant visa program for qualifying investors.
An EB-5 applicant may therefore have extensive documentation concerning investment capital, assets, financial resources, business activity, and economic circumstances.
Those facts can be directly relevant to the individualized public charge inquiry.
That makes a categorical refusal to adjudicate based on nationality particularly significant when the statute itself directs the government to evaluate the individual’s financial position and other personal circumstances.
The public charge statute asks whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge.
USCIS guidance confirms that the relevant evaluation involves individual factors such as age, health, family circumstances, assets, resources, financial position, education, and skills.
Nationality alone does not answer those questions.
Two applicants from the same country may have completely different economic circumstances.
One may have substantial assets.
Another may have a qualifying financial sponsor.
One may be a physician.
Another may be an investor.
Another may have significant business interests.
Another may have immediate family support in the United States.
That is exactly why an individualized analysis matters.
Applicants should not interpret this individual victory as permission to assume their visas will now be issued.
The State Department continues to publish guidance concerning the 75-country immigrant visa issuance pause.
Its official page states that affected applicants can continue submitting visa applications and attending interviews.
That means applicants should continue complying with instructions from the National Visa Center and the applicable United States embassy or consulate unless advised otherwise.
Missing a scheduled interview or failing to provide requested documentation because someone believes the policy has already been invalidated nationwide could create unnecessary complications.
The 75-country public charge policy is not the only immigration restriction currently affecting international visa processing.
Separate presidential proclamations and State Department rules restrict visa issuance to nationals of certain countries for national security and public safety reasons.
For example, State Department guidance concerning Presidential Proclamation 10998 describes full or partial restrictions affecting nationals of numerous countries beginning January 1, 2026.
An applicant therefore cannot assume that defeating one public charge related obstacle necessarily eliminates every other potential visa restriction.
Federal immigration litigation must identify the specific legal basis preventing issuance of the visa.
The first step is determining exactly where the immigrant visa case stands.
Applicants should identify whether the underlying petition has been approved.
They should determine whether the National Visa Center considers the case documentarily complete.
They should confirm whether an interview has occurred.
They should review any refusal sheet or written communication from the embassy or consulate.
They should determine whether additional documents were requested.
They should identify whether the case is in administrative processing.
And most importantly, they should determine whether the government is specifically withholding final adjudication because of the 75-country policy.
That distinction can determine whether federal litigation is even worth considering.
Federal litigation can be powerful.
It can also be expensive, technical, and fact-depending.
The purpose of filing suit should not simply be to express frustration with immigration policy.
There should be a concrete legal injury and a viable legal theory concerning governmental action or inaction.
An immigration attorney evaluating potential litigation should therefore review the entire consular record.
That includes the approved petition, National Visa Center correspondence, interview history, refusal notices, administrative processing communications, public charge documentation, financial records, and any communication indicating that the case is frozen because of nationality.
Large immigration policies often affect thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.
But federal courts decide actual cases brought by actual plaintiffs.
Sometimes broader litigation ultimately changes policy for everyone.
Sometimes Congress changes the law.
Sometimes the executive branch changes its own policy.
And sometimes an individual does not want to wait for any of those things.
That is what makes this case important.
One Brazilian immigrant investor challenged what the government was doing to his own application.
He did not obtain relief for every immigrant visa applicant in the world.
He obtained an order requiring the government to deal with his case.
For another person facing substantially similar circumstances, that may be the most important lesson from this ruling.
Immigrant visa delays and government freezes can create enormous consequences.
Families remain separated.
Investors cannot move forward with business and relocation plans.
Employers face uncertainty.
Children age.
Documents expire.
Medical examinations may need to be repeated.
And applicants who followed every step of the immigration process can find themselves unable to obtain a final decision because of a policy they had no ability to anticipate.
At Spar & Bernstein, our immigration attorneys can review whether an immigrant visa case affected by the 75-country policy may present grounds for individual federal litigation.
That analysis may include reviewing the immigrant petition, National Visa Center processing, consular interview record, public charge documentation, refusal notices, administrative processing history, State Department correspondence, and the legal basis for the government’s refusal to complete adjudication.
Where appropriate, counsel can evaluate potential claims under federal administrative law and determine whether an individual lawsuit may be a reasonable strategy.
July 31, 2026, ruling does not promise victory to every applicant.
But it sends an important message.
Being affected by a nationwide immigration policy does not necessarily mean an individual must simply wait indefinitely.
Sometimes the right legal strategy is to challenge how the government is applying that policy to your own case.
One immigrant did exactly that.
And he obtained relief.
If your immigrant visa interview has already occurred, your case is otherwise ready for adjudication, and the government is refusing to complete the process because your nationality appears on the 75-country list, speak with an experienced immigration attorney about whether your individual circumstances justify federal court action.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Federal immigration litigation, consular processing, public charge inadmissibility, and immigrant visa eligibility are highly fact specific. Court decisions and federal policies can also change through appeals, subsequent litigation, or agency action. Anyone considering a federal lawsuit should obtain legal advice concerning their individual case.
