A new federal lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia challenges the US Department of State (DOS)’s suspension of visa processing for nationals of 39 countries subject to presidential entry restrictions issued under INA §212(f). The complaint — Chikumba v. Department of State (No. 1:26‑cv‑00332) — argues that while the president may restrict entry to the United States, the DOS lacks authority to halt visa adjudications that the immigration statutes require it to process.
Background
On December 16, 2025, the White House issued Presidential Proclamation 10998, expanding earlier restrictions and directing full or partial suspension of entry for nationals of 39 countries (and certain applicants using Palestinian Authority travel documents), citing national security and vetting concerns. The DOS subsequently announced it would suspend visa issuance in line with that proclamation, with limited exceptions, effective January 1, 2026.
The plaintiffs — 26 intending immigrants from countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Zimbabwe — contend that converting an entry suspension into a visa processing freeze violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and exceeds statutory authority. They also warn of cascading harms, including family separation and loss of visa availability when annual caps are reached if adjudications remain paused.
What the Lawsuit Argues
- Scope of INA §212(f): The complaint maintains that §212(f) permits the president to suspend entry, but does not authorize the DOS to stop adjudicating visa applications Congress has directed be processed. Courts, plaintiffs say, have not recognized an expansion from entry control to visa adjudication suspensions.
- APA Claims: The suit alleges the Department’s blanket freeze is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law, because it imposes a categorical halt without notice‑and‑comment and beyond what the proclamations allow.
How This Differs From the 75‑Country Green Card Freeze Litigation
This case focuses on 39 countries tied to the travel‑ban‑style entry proclamations. Separate litigation filed earlier this week challenges a pause on immigrant visa issuance for 75 countries linked to “public benefits risk” criteria. Though both suits raise APA and statutory authority issues, they target different legal rationales and agency actions.
Erickson Insights & Analysis
Erickson Immigration Group will continue monitoring developments and sharing updates as more news is available. Please contact your employer or EIG attorney if you have questions about anything we’re reporting above or if you have case-specific questions.