CASE PROSPECTUS:

This class action group lawsuit is an opportunity for Immigrant Visa (IV) applicants to challenge the legality of the State Department’s January 14, 2026, decision to pause all visa issuances to IV applicants who are nationals of the following countries: 

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
See: Immigrant Visa Processing Updates for Nationalities at High Risk of Public Benefits Usage. 

This is our second group lawsuit challenging the 75-Country Pause. The first group lawsuit, Storie v Trump, Case No. 1:26-cv-00567, is pending in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The main difference between that lawsuit and this lawsuit is this lawsuit will be a putative class action, as explained below.

We will be filing this lawsuit in a U.S. District Court TO BE DETERMINED BY ATTORNEY PRIOR TO FILING. 

Important Dates:

Deadline to participate:  June 26, 2026 

Filing date for complaint:  July 10, 2026

These are firm deadlines. 

To participate in this lawsuit, a participant must:

1) be the primary applicant of an Immigrant Visa application in the Employment or Family-Based categories, and not a DV-2026 selectee.  

2) have already submitted a DS-260 and have an Immigrant Visa Case Number, and 

3) not be a participant in another lawsuit challenging the 75-country pause. (This means no Storie v Trump plaintiffs can participate.) 

Important disclosure #1:

Important note for prospective participants who are citizens of travel ban countries due to Proclamation 10949 and 10998. (Those countries include: Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Gabon, The Gambia, Iran, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria,  Palestinian Authority, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe).  

This group lawsuit will not challenge these 2 travel bans as unlawful. That is not the focus of this lawsuit. Thus, if you are a citizen of a travel ban country, and you choose to participate in this group lawsuit, understand that even with the best outcome, this group lawsuit will only remove one obstacle you face. 

Important disclosure #2 – Class Action: 

This will be a putative class action lawsuit. This means we will not only be seeking relief for the named plaintiffs, but also, through a motion for class certification, we will be asking the court to give relief to all similarly situated IV applicants who are impacted by the pause. However, just because we are asking for that outcome does not mean the judge will agree. It is possible the judge grants relief only to named plaintiffs, just as it is also possible that the judge grants no relief. 

Important disclosure #3 – CLINIC v Rubio: 

There is a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, CLINIC et al. v. Rubio et al., No. 1:26-cv-00858-JAV where the plaintiffs also seek to have the 75-Country Pause cancelled for all. However, the strategy in that lawsuit is to use vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act, instead of a certified class. While we wish those plaintiffs and their attorneys success with that effort, we believe it is also best to have a “Plan B” in case that lawsuit does not accomplish the goal of enjoining the pause. 

The desired outcome, the removal of the pause and decisions on IV applications, can come from this lawsuit, CLINIC or even the Trump administration reversing its discriminatory policy.  

The cause of the desired income does not impact the terms of the agreement for participating in this lawsuit. In other words, your obligation to pay the deferred payment noted below is not dependent upon what caused the visa issuance. 

Cost to Participate:

The attorney fee to participate as plaintiffs in the lawsuit will be $2,000 for each primary applicant. This fee includes the cost of participation of all derivative beneficiaries regardless of family size per petition.  

Exceptions are petitioners of two IR5 parents; both parents can be added under one registration. Similarly, Petitioners can add their IR/CR2 children to their IR1 spouses' case. For each of these two exceptions, select “add applicant” after completing the first applicants’ registration. 

For terms of payment, $1,000 will be due in advance of the representation to onboard as a plaintiff. The remaining $1,000 will be due only after entry into the US, and payable in monthly payments of $250 per month.