Judge overturns 2026 DV freeze policy, directs Secretary rubio to resume process

LOS ANGELES:- On Friday, a federal judge temporarily set aside three Trump administration policies, thereby overturning the decision to halt or obstruct the processing of Diversity Visa applications for the 2026 fiscal year. In the issued order, the judge directed the U.S. State Department and USCIS to re-adjudicate the affected applicants’ cases according to standard procedures, to the extent possible.

U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California has certified three nationwide subclasses in a lawsuit, encompassing individuals selected for the Diversity Visa (DV) program and their eligible family members. With this move, the scope of preliminary relief has expanded beyond the individual plaintiffs who filed the suit to include affected applicants across the country.

A court order has temporarily set aside the USCIS policy that indefinitely halted final decisions on pending status adjustment applications for DV selectees already in the United States. Similarly, the State Department’s decisions to suspend the DV issuance process and to halt the approval of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries have also been set aside.

However, this ruling does not guarantee that any applicant will receive a visa or a Green Card. Instead, it orders the relevant authorities to revert to the standard individual assessment process, subject to visa availability, eligibility criteria, and other provisions of immigration law.

Judge Dávila has directed the State Department to take all appropriate steps—”to the extent possible and in good faith”—to reconsider cases involving DV visas that were denied solely due to the visa suspension or the ban affecting 75 countries. The Department must also resume processing pending applications in accordance with standard procedures.

Similarly, USCIS has been ordered to take all appropriate steps to resume the normal adjudication process for pending adjustment-of-status applications filed by DV selectees, without applying its policy of suspending such cases.

This order is particularly significant because the Diversity Visa program for the 2026 fiscal year is set to expire on September 30. Applicants now have only a limited amount of time to complete the process before that deadline. Any Diversity Visas not utilized by that date will expire.

Davila has also directed both parties to submit a joint report on the progress of the case and propose a schedule for future legal proceedings by September 18.

The court has not certified a single class encompassing all affected applicants. Instead, Davila has certified three separate subclasses that apply nationwide.

The first category includes Fiscal Year 2026 DV selectees and their derivative beneficiaries who are affected by the USCIS suspension policy. The second category comprises individuals affected by the suspension of DV issuance implemented by the State Department. The third category consists of individuals affected by the State Department’s suspension of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries.

According to the court, all three groups share the same central legal question: whether the policy affecting them was lawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Although different government agencies and applicant groups are involved in the three policies, Davila has noted that, collectively, these policies have deprived the remaining Fiscal Year 2026 DV applicants of the opportunity to obtain a visa.

The order notes that the named plaintiffs in the case represent approximately 1,500 affected individuals. The court has appointed Curtis Lee Morrison, Jessica T. Arena, Alexander W. Loznak, Hamdi Maher Masri, Zhao Guo, Carolina Solano, and Garrett Carter May as legal representatives for the class action lawsuit.

Davila concluded that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the government’s policies were arbitrary and unreasonable under the Administrative Procedure Act.

According to the judge, the administration failed to provide a reasoned justification for its decision to halt the process in a broad and categorical manner affecting all applicants.

He also stated that security concerns linked to the alleged activities of former DV beneficiaries do not provide sufficient grounds to halt the processing of thousands of applicants en masse. The court maintained that such a blanket suspension is inappropriate, particularly given that immigration laws already mandate individual security checks and other assessments for each applicant.

The court stated that it found no evidence that the concerned authorities had given adequate consideration to alternative measures that would address the government’s security concerns without undermining the Diversity Visa (DV) program established by Congress.

Similarly, Davila has stated that government agencies have not adequately considered the expectations and reliance of applicants who have already invested money and time in medical examinations, application fees, interviews, travel, and other necessary procedures.

The government had argued that these policies did not constitute final government decisions subject to judicial review and that mere selection in the lottery did not entitle an applicant to a visa.

However, Davila rejected the first argument. He stated that the indefinite ban and the blanket suspension had an immediate legal impact, as they effectively precluded any opportunity for a decision to be reached on the applicants’ cases.

However, this ruling is not a final decision on the case but rather an order issued at a preliminary stage. The federal government may choose to continue litigating the case or appeal to a higher court. The order does not mandate that the government approve every pending DV application.

Applicants must still meet all legal and procedural requirements under immigration law. These include processes such as medical examinations, security checks, and assessments of eligibility for entry into the United States.

Similarly, a visa number must be available for the respective applicant in accordance with the program’s statutory preference order.

The court clarified that it did not rule on whether individual applicants were eligible for visas. The issue reviewed by the court was whether the policies suspending visas—which affected all applicants collectively—were lawful.

However, this order has reopened a significant opportunity for individuals selected in the DV program for the 2026 fiscal year whose processing was halted or applications rejected solely due to any of these three policies. Their applications can now proceed through the standard process, though time is very limited to complete the procedure before the fiscal year ends on September 30.