immigration updates: November 4, 2026

_de facto, if not de jure_If the courts won’t let the Trump Administration ban visas from certain countries, one way for it to react would be to simply just stop issuing the visas without calling it a ban.

In January, the Department of State suspended immigrant-visa (green card) issuance to nationals of 75 countries, claiming that they presented a heightened risk of becoming dependent on public assistance. On August 21, a federal judge struck down to policy, holding that DOS could not categorically refuse visas based on nationality when the immigration laws required case-by-case determinations. The court also set aside refusals based solely on that policy and sent those applications back for reconsideration.

DOS acknowledges that the restriction is no longer in effect, and has reacted by spending all of its time training officers on the new public charge screening procedures, instead of processing the cases that it had essentially frozen. In September, it asked the judge to pause her ruling, arguing that reconsidering the affected applications while introducing new screening procedures would burden DOS. The judge rejected that argument, noting that her ruling did not require new interviews or repeated public-charge assessments, which were additional steps the department itself had chosen to impose on itself.

So: can the applicants just sue DOS again to get them to start moving on their applications? Not exactly. They can sue over unreasonable delay, but for green card cases they must first show that there is still a legally-required act remaining that can be compelled. What DOS likes to do is to issue a “refusal,” which is basically “we’re not denying it outright, but rather just placing it into this little box called administrative processing,” at which point DOS can argue that it has discharged it’s due to adjudicate and that no legally-required actions remain. One must then essentially continue to poke the agency until they tire of the efforts and decide to take action. (Administrative processing and the doctrine of consular nonreviewability merit a much longer discussion.)

We previously reported on the different approaches that a few consular posts are taking to implement their public charge review, indicating that there is in fact some movement on this front.

_nobody would design this system_One of the most striking features of the immigration court system is its highly bureaucratic nature. For a real world example, contemplate Sally in marketing, who can’t finish a product launch until the product team sends the final copy. Her manager could keep scheduling meetings to ask whether she’s finished, but the sensible move would be to just set it aside until the product team has done its part.

Immigrants in removal proceedings often face a similar coordination problem, waiting for USCIS to process a filing that could largely determine the outcome of the court proceedings. Administrative closure is a procedure that lets the immigration judge take the case off the active calendar while that agency process unfolds. It doesn’t resolve anything; it just allows one part of the system to wait for another. In May 2024, the Biden Justice Department issued a regulation expressly authorizing administrative closure, allowing immigration judges to pause cases under specified standards.

The problem being, however, that USCIS or the Department of Labor can take years to work though a filing. On June 22, Texas sued to invalidate the regulation authorizing administrative closure. The Department of Justice, rather than defending its rule, agreed with Texas and the two sides obtained a court judgment striking it down that same day.

That left no original party willing to defend the regulation. On August 7, Baltimore, Columbus, New Haven, and Centro Legal de la Raza sought permission to join the case so they could appeal. The district judge denied intervention on August 21, finding that they lacked the concrete injury necessary to establish standing. They appealed and sought to pause the judgment, but the district court and Fifth Circuit declined interim relief.

The applicants then sought a stay from the Supreme Court. On October 27, the Court denied their request without explanation, leaving the judgment operative while the appeal proceeds. It did not decide that administrative closure is unlawful; it merely declined to suspend the lower court’s judgment. For now, closed cases remain closed until DOJ elects, on a case-by-case basis, to recalendar them. We recently discussed the explosion in processing times for family-based petitions before USCIS, leaving immigrants in court proceedings who are relying on such petitions with little choice but to sue USCIS to force action.

So a simple green card application now often entails three agencies and two distinct legal proceedings.

_lottery limbo_As we’ve covered in recent newsletters, a federal judge ordered DOS to restart the diversity visa 2027 lottery, with registration opening by November 1. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal, suspending the deadlines without setting replacement dates.

The problem is one of legal standing. The plaintiff seeking to reinstate the lottery, Red Eagle Law, filed the lawsuit on the basis of lost business from representing future lottery selectees. The Ninth Circuit held that this interest was not protected by the diversity-visa statute. The panel expressly declined to endorse State’s failure to open registration. We are now without either a final ruling that the administration may abandon the program or, in the alternative, a reopening announcement.

_on applying for admission_Crossing the border is a physical act; “admission” is a legal one. For someone who entered unlawfully and was much later detained, that distinction can determine whether a judge must hear their request for release.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that such residents had no constitutional right to individualized bond hearings. One had lived in the U.S. for more than 22 years, another since 2011, and the third since 2012—roughly 14–15 years for the latter two. They sought hearings to establish whether they posed a danger or flight risk. The court ruled that their detention did not require that assessment, because they were still (legally, not literally) applying to be admitted.

The decision only binds federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and leaves open other challenges to other aspects of detention, including prolonged confinement. But its immediate consequence is stark. Because the circuit courts regularly split on these issues, we can reasonably expect to see it reach the Supreme Court at some point in the future.

_etc._Everyone flying out of the U.S. after tomorrow must attest that they haven’t been to Congo in the last 21 days. Employers with at least 50 U.S. employees, of whom most are in H-1B or L-1 status, must pay an additional $4,500 for L-1 extensions. DOS advises Americans to avoid Saudi Arabia while it orders non-emergency staff to depart.

Matthew Blaisdell, Esq.
Sunset Immigration PLLC
219 36th Street, Ste 511
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Book appointment