A coalition of immigrant-rights organisations, universities and affected U.S. citizens filed suit in federal court in Manhattan on 2 February 2026, seeking an injunction against the Biden-era Presidential Proclamation that indefinitely bars immigrant and non-immigrant visas for citizens of 75 mostly African, Middle-Eastern and Caribbean nations. Plaintiffs argue the administration relied on a disputed “public-charge” methodology that claims nationals of the listed states are statistically more likely to rely on government benefits. They cite internal State Department e-mails—obtained through FOIA—that show career officers warning the policy would keep families apart and undermine U.S. business recruitment of specialised talent.
The proclamation, signed on 12 January and in force since 1 February, goes far beyond earlier 212(f) restrictions by suspending family, employment and diversity-lottery visas and halting consular processing except for narrow humanitarian waivers. Multinational employers report dozens of high-skilled candidates unable to board flights for onboarding in the United States; universities say more than 8,000 spring-semester students are stranded abroad.
For individuals and organisations scrambling for alternatives, VisaHQ can help navigate the shifting landscape by identifying viable waiver strategies, monitoring consular reopenings and arranging third-country processing. Its U.S. resource page (https://www.visahq.com/united-states/) provides real-time updates and streamlined document services, offering employers, students and families a practical toolset while the courts decide the proclamation’s fate.
![Rights Groups Sue Over 75-Country U.S. Visa Ban]()
The complaint alleges the rule has a disparate racial impact, violating the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and exceeds the president’s delegated authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act because Congress already created a detailed public-charge test that must be applied case-by-case. Plaintiffs seek immediate relief before tens of thousands of pending visa applications are formally refused.
If the ban stands, U.S. firms may have to relocate critical projects to Canada, the U.K. or the EU, where impacted talent can legally reside. Human-resources teams are also bracing for a wave of internal transfers and costly new L-1 filings as they reposition staff who can no longer obtain H-1B or E-2 visas. Legal observers expect a fast-tracked appeal that could move to the Supreme Court before the summer travel season.
For global-mobility managers, the litigation underscores the volatility surrounding U.S. entry policy: employee pipelines that depend on consular processing in high-volume posts such as Lagos, Port-au-Prince and Nairobi remain frozen until the courts rule. Companies should map critical talent currently outside the United States, prepare alternative assignment locations and consider remote-first onboarding strategies while the legal battle unfolds.
The proclamation, signed on 12 January and in force since 1 February, goes far beyond earlier 212(f) restrictions by suspending family, employment and diversity-lottery visas and halting consular processing except for narrow humanitarian waivers. Multinational employers report dozens of high-skilled candidates unable to board flights for onboarding in the United States; universities say more than 8,000 spring-semester students are stranded abroad.
For individuals and organisations scrambling for alternatives, VisaHQ can help navigate the shifting landscape by identifying viable waiver strategies, monitoring consular reopenings and arranging third-country processing. Its U.S. resource page (https://www.visahq.com/united-states/) provides real-time updates and streamlined document services, offering employers, students and families a practical toolset while the courts decide the proclamation’s fate.
The complaint alleges the rule has a disparate racial impact, violating the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and exceeds the president’s delegated authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act because Congress already created a detailed public-charge test that must be applied case-by-case. Plaintiffs seek immediate relief before tens of thousands of pending visa applications are formally refused.
If the ban stands, U.S. firms may have to relocate critical projects to Canada, the U.K. or the EU, where impacted talent can legally reside. Human-resources teams are also bracing for a wave of internal transfers and costly new L-1 filings as they reposition staff who can no longer obtain H-1B or E-2 visas. Legal observers expect a fast-tracked appeal that could move to the Supreme Court before the summer travel season.
For global-mobility managers, the litigation underscores the volatility surrounding U.S. entry policy: employee pipelines that depend on consular processing in high-volume posts such as Lagos, Port-au-Prince and Nairobi remain frozen until the courts rule. Companies should map critical talent currently outside the United States, prepare alternative assignment locations and consider remote-first onboarding strategies while the legal battle unfolds.
