The 75-Country Immigrant Visa Suspension and What It Means for EB-5 Investors.

A federal lawsuit now at critical pre-trial juncture challenges the State Department’s blanket suspension — and the outcome matters for investors from Brazil, Columbia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and dozens of other countries.

---

What Happened

On January 21, 2026, the U.S. Department of State implemented a sweeping policy that indefinitely suspended immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries. The stated rationale was concern that applicants from these countries posed an elevated risk of becoming a “public charge” — that is, someone likely to become primarily dependent on government assistance.

The list of affected countries spans Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. It includes, among others, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and Brazil — countries that have historically produced a smaller share of EB-5 investors. The full list of countries is published on the State Department’s official policy page.

The State Department labeled these nations “Nationalities at High Risk of U.S. Public Benefits Reliance.” No detailed data supporting that designation has been made public. Immigrant visa applicants who are nationals of affected countries may still submit visa applications and attend interviews, the Department will continue to schedule visa interviews, but immigrant visas will not be issued as long the policy is in force.

A Note on Second Passports under CBI programs

Many investors from the suspended countries have obtained second citizenships through various citizenship-by-investment (CBI) programs — Grenada, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines — or through Montenegro’s former program. These passports are widely held as travel and contingency planning tools.

The only exemption available is for dual nationals holding a passport from a country not on the list. Investors who hold citizenship in an EU member state, Turkey, or another non-listed country should consult with immigration counsel about whether that nationality can be used in their consular processing.

The Lawsuit: CLINIC v. Rubio (Case No. 1:26-CV-00858)

On February 2, 2026, a coalition of immigration nonprofits and individuals filed a 107-page federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is captioned Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, Case No. 1:26-CV-00858, and is commonly referred to as CLINIC v. Rubio.

Plaintiffs include the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), African Communities Together, and eleven individual petitioners, U.S. citizens, trying to bring family members to the United States, as well as employment-based visa applicants caught under the suspension. The legal team is led by the National Immigration Law Center, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Democracy Forward, the Legal Aid Society, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Case Status

Date	Development
February 2, 2026	Complaint filed
March 10, 2026	Plaintiffs move for summary judgment
March 26, 2026	Defendants move for partial summary judgment and oppose plaintiffs’ motion

The case is currently in active briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment, with no ruling yet issued. The complaint argues that the policy:

• Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — which requires individualized, case-by-case public charge assessments rather than blanket nationality-based exclusions
• Violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — because the policy was implemented without notice-and-comment rulemaking
• Violates the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including its equal protection principles, given the discriminatory targeting of predominantly non-white nations
• Exceeds the State Department’s statutory authority — Congress did not authorize the agency to unilaterally rewrite the public charge standard

The plaintiffs are seeking a court order directing the State Department to resume individualized visa adjudications consistent with the law Congress enacted.

Why This Matters for EB-5

The immigrant visa issued at a U.S. consulate abroad is the final procedural step for many EB-5 investors completing their green card process outside the United States. An investor who has an approved I-526E petition, and is ready to present for consular processing abroad can now find that final visa issuance step blocked — not because of anything in their personal record, but solely because of their nationality.

The policy also raises a practical concern that falls outside the scope of this specific lawsuit: even applicants who had already received a favorable public charge determination through consular processing were denied immigrant visas solely on the basis of nationality. That is precisely the kind of individualized finding the law requires — and which the administration’s policy overrode.

The Adjustment of Status Distinction

One important clarification for EB-5 investors already present in the United States: the January 21 policy applies only to consular processing of immigrant visas at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. It does not affect Adjustment of Status (Form I-485) applications filed within the United States.

EB-5 investors currently inside the U.S. on a valid non-immigrant status who are pursuing their green card through the domestic adjustment process are not directly impacted by the 75-country suspension. This distinction matters significantly for investors from all countries affected by the policy.

What to Watch

CLINIC v. Rubio is an active case. A favorable ruling could restore the State Department to individualized visa adjudications for all 75 affected countries and potentially allow visa-seeking investors to resume processing. The case does not address the separate 39-country travel ban (Proclamation 10998, effective January 1, 2026) or the diversity visa pause.

The outcome will turn in part on whether the court agrees that the INA forecloses nationality-based blanket exclusions of the kind the State Department has implemented, and whether the failure to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking is itself disqualifying under the APA.

For Investors Considering EB-5

The visa suspension does not affect the EB-5 petition process itself — USCIS continues to accept and adjudicate I-526E petitions regardless of an investor’s nationality. For investors from affected countries who are at the beginning of the process, the suspension may create a real constraint at the finish line, if the lawsuit fails. That distinction matters for planning purposes, and it does not mean EB-5 is off the table. Individuals proceeding through Adjustment of Status are not affected by the policy.

The Bottom Line