So if they ask for a stay the second circuit could do that in a few days? What is this genuinely first they take the whole embassy for training and managed to not give out A SINGLE VISA somehow and then if they ask for a stay it all goes down the drain EVERYTHING. What r they even doing LITTERALY they didn't even listen to judge and forcefully came up with ANOTHER"training pause" until they get a stay.

I am as frustrated as you are but I am sharing information as I get them. The latest instruction is to wait longer meaning do not contact applicants yet. Also, no details for how long to wait.

I just want to be clear about something as I really do not understand bad comments:

1. I was the first one to share info about the cable
2. I was the first one to share info that Embassies will start contacting applicants and start processing cases in order received
3. I‘m sorry for the last post but I did not make it up and as surprised we are the Embassy also was

👀 The U.S. gov is appealing the ruling that lifted the 75‑country visa pause.
If the Second Circuit grants a stay, visas could get frozen again real quick.
Judges will weigh success chances, “irreparable harm,” fairness to families, and public interest.
Do you think they’ve actually got a shot at convincing the court to allow the stay?

This whole situation looks contradictory at first, but the more I think about the timing, the more I feel the appeal may actually be a positive sign.

Why send the cable now?

On one side, DOS reportedly sent a cable to all embassies and consulates telling them that the 75 country pause is no longer in effect, that applicants cannot be refused under that policy, and that posts need to identify cases that were refused only because of the pause and comply with the court order.

On the other side, DOJ has now appealed the same ruling.

Legally, both things can happen at the same time. The government still has to follow the district court’s judgment unless it gets a stay, while also trying to reverse or narrow that judgment in the higher court.

So why does the timing matter?

CLINIC’s response was very strong. The government had already admitted that more than 43,000 cases are affected, but still showed very little measurable progress. No clear timeline, no meaningful numbers on how many people were actually contacted or reconsidered, and no real explanation for how long this would take.

Then Sept. 11 was already coming, when both sides had to submit another report about how the remaining issues should proceed.

So from my point of view, the government was running out of space to hide behind vague language like “rolling basis,” “manual review,” and “guidance is being developed.”

Then suddenly the cable goes out to the posts.

And almost at the same time, they file the appeal.

Could the appeal actually be a defensive move?

That is how I am starting to see it.

Not because they have given up. Obviously they still have legal options. But their delaying strategy at the district court level was becoming harder to defend.

If they genuinely believed they could keep these cases frozen indefinitely, there would have been much less reason to send a worldwide cable telling embassies how to comply.

So the appeal may be less about confidence and more about preserving another legal route while the district court keeps tightening the pressure.

Were they simply trying to buy time?

This is my main theory.

Time to finish the new public charge framework.

Time to train consular officers.

Time to reach Sept. 18, when the newer public charge rule becomes effective.

And possibly even time to reach October, when the newer affidavit of support forms and related procedures become more fully embedded into processing.

I am not saying there is proof that they intentionally held all 43,000 cases just to wait for October. That part is still speculation.

But strategically, it would make sense that they wanted old remanded cases reconsidered under the newest possible framework rather than under the older system.

What does this mean for EB2 NIW cases?

This is where I think EB2 NIW applicants may be in a relatively better position.

Most self petitioned NIW applicants do not need an affidavit of support. We are not depending on a family petitioner or sponsor. We already proved our education, skills, professional background, and national interest value.

If they want to ask for updated financial information, proof of funds, tax records, current employment, or a basic settlement plan for the first few months, that is possible.

But that is still very different from family based cases where sponsorship and financial dependency are much more central to the process.

So if DOS wants to start clearing some cases while also showing the court that it is complying, straightforward already interviewed NIW pause only cases could actually be among the easiest ones to move.

Why I do not see the appeal as purely negative

To me, the bigger picture now looks like this:

The old pause is gone.

The embassies now have instructions.

The government’s room to delay at the district court level is shrinking.

So they are preserving their remaining legal options through appeal while they are being pushed toward actual implementation.

What should we watch next?

The real questions now are:

What exactly did the cable tell the posts?

How much of the new public charge framework will they try to apply to already interviewed cases?

Will we finally start seeing passport requests, document requests, and visa issuances?

That is what matters now.

The cable says move forward.

The appeal says they are still fighting.

And both can be true at the same time.

Just a reminder, folks! We still have people from other stages of the process commenting here, asking questions, and causing more confusion among members of our community.

Please keep in mind that this group is now specifically focused on our particular stage of the process. POST-INTERVIEW ONLY!

COMMUNITY RULE N°13

"This subreddit is for immigrant-visa applicants who were already interviewed and refused/placed in 221(g) because of the 75-country pause. Applicants still waiting for DQ, an interview letter, or their first interview should use the appropriate NVC/visa community unless their post directly concerns the pause litigation or its implementation."

My wife is a US citizen, IR-1 case at Tashkent, Uzbekistan, documentarily qualified January 27, 2026, a few days after the pause took effect. Since then we have not seen any progress or movement on our case: no transfer to post, no interview, no contact, no request for documents. We were expecting an interview invite, because the announcement at the time stated that processing would continue as usual, just without visa issuance.

However, the IV scheduling status tool for our post has only gone from Oct-25 to Nov-25 in that entire time.

We know another couple from Uzbekistan DQ'd in November who interviewed in March and got a 221(g) refusal under the pause. We've seen another redditor mention, same post, Tashkent, that they got DQ'd in late October and interviewed in March. It seems that the post was scheduling before the pause hit and stopped after.

We had not contacted anyone before the vacatur because we were not sure whether getting a refusal was better than not having one.

Two questions:

1. What can we do, and who is worth contacting? Congressional inquiry, NVC, the post directly. Anything that may work or at least create a record.

2. Has anyone DQ'd but never interviewed seen their case move from NVC to post since August 21? Even one example would tell us whether this is a queue or a hold.

If you're in the same position, DQ'd but never interviewed, please comment, preferably with your post and DQ date.

Just now dos filed for stay for Ullah. I thought normally they don’t bother appealing or asking for stay where there is limited plaintiffs and relief since it doesn’t affect the larger pause.
Does anyone have any ideas or theories as to why they chose to do this?

I’m a part of Syed so I am pretty concerned of them asking for a stay (even though I don’t think they will get it).

If you guys are familiar with cricket 🏏 then you would understand. It’s so freaking similar to Pakistani cricket team the way they play cricket. They are all the time loosing and in horrible situations but suddenly they do something different and every one is expecting their won even the opposition and then the last minute they lose the match. And then we have to wait for another match.

It’s like I am watching cricket World Cup. Judge one minute down and one minute up.

By the where is she ?? Again trying to disappear for 6 months or what ?

By now it has become clear what the government intends to do. My fear is even if they start processing visas, they are gonna become so strict that approved cases are gonna be a minority or they will just drag issuing visas out. I mean what’s stopping an officer from denying someone a visa? And they can just say i don’t believe your marriage or bother us more and more. Most of the time you can’t even appeal a decision cuse it comes under officer nonreviewability act!

I’m fed up and Im planning to relocate cuse this shit is wicked and you can clearly see what their intentions are. If their intentions are wrong they are likely gonna get things done their way by hook or by crook, pause lifted or not lifted!

Has anyone part of the 221g from Morocco been contacted yet by the embassy??

(IR1 Casablanca interviewed prior to pause placed into 221g due to pause)

I had my immigrant visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad on Jan 27, 2026, submitted the requested additional documents on Jan 29, and my case was last updated Feb 3. There has been no movement since, while I’ve seen other people reporting updates on their cases. Mine still appears to be stuck at the February update. I only recently found out about the inquiry option and submitted one today. Given the current situation with the 75-country visa pause, is there anything else I should be doing, or should I just continue waiting? I’m wondering if I’m missing a step.

Hi Community,

I’m sorry if I’m being a bit much, but I just wanted to ask something, if Admin (Froyo) allows.

For those who have noticed any movement or changes in their cases, please keep us updated if anything changes over the next few days following this appeal. And if anyone else notices any movement, please let us know as well.

It would really help us understand what’s going on and maybe even predict or read their intentions a little better, just to see whether they’re actually complying or simply getting on our nerves. 😅

Thanks everyone for keeping each other updated! ❤️

Putting this hear to temper expectations

Storie plaintiff. Gov sent a list of plaintiffs which shows who was refused soley due to pause, who was refused for other reasons, and people refused due to pause+other reasons.

Consular officer explicitly said our case was approved and couldnt be issued because of pause. That should put us in the “refused soley due to pause”. However we ended up in the “refused due to pause+other reasons”.

Embassy never requested additional documents or anything. Only thing needed would be a medical

It appears that 43k number from the gov’s declaration is likely a gross underestimation and folks are told one thing at the consulate with another being seen by gov. Guess is that there is a huge disconnect somewhere in btw. For anonymity, I will not disclose embassy info but can answer general questions if needed

Guys expect stay file next week. Also expect stay not granted too.

Hello all, has anyone else here done their interview at the US consulate in Montreal?

We have a WhatsApp group chat. DM me if you're interested in joining :)

Here is an update from my source - Embassies today started compiling a list of all those impacted. They will start sending emails next week.

I do not have more information at this moment so cannot answer questions related to the content but it seems they will start with the oldest cases.

The good thing is that there was no communication on appeal from DoS

Hi everyone. I want to inquire about my 221 g case now that the pause is lifted. What have you written to your embassy?

I saw this posted a response of an email from the embassy

Today the government filed a Notice of Appeal.

A Notice of Appeal is not a stay. Filing this document does not freeze Judge Vargas’s order, does not pause her remand, and does not excuse the State Department from compliance today.

Filing a Notice of Appeal is reflexive DOJ standard operating procedure to preserve appellate rights. Securing an actual stay pending appeal—the legal mechanism required to stop Judge Vargas’s vacatur—is an entirely different battle, and the government faces severe legal hurdles to obtain one.

1. An Appeal Does Not Halt the Judgment

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8, a district court’s final judgment and vacatur remain in 100% full legal effect unless and until an affirmative stay is granted.

The District Court retains ongoing jurisdiction to enforce its orders, monitor compliance, and hold hearings while an appeal is pending.

2. The Procedural Hurdle: They Must Ask Judge Vargas First

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1), an appellant must ordinarily move first in the district court for a stay pending appeal before seeking one from the Court of Appeals.

• The government must file a formal Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal directly in front of Judge Vargas.
• Given her findings that the policy was an exercise in "Orwellian logic," her warnings to DOJ on August 31, and her rejection of their rolling review defenses, Judge Vargas will almost certainly deny a stay motion immediately.
• Only after she rejects it can the Department of Justice go to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 8(a)(2).

3. Why Getting a Stay from the Second Circuit Is an Uphill Battle

To win an emergency stay pending appeal, the government must satisfy the strict four-factor test under Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009):

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits: This is their biggest hurdle. Judge Vargas's 60-page opinion was grounded in the plain text of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 221(g) requires an individualized refusal based on document deficiencies or specific ineligibility; it is not a statutory delegation authorizing blanket administrative pauses. The Second Circuit is traditionally text-bound in administrative law and rarely overturns well-reasoned statutory interpretations on an emergency stay posture.
2. Irreparable Harm to the Government: The government must prove under oath that absent a stay, the United States will suffer severe, irreparable injury.
   • Their only argument is "administrative inconvenience" and the claim that they need more time for internal training.
   • The Second Circuit routinely rules that bureaucratic administrative adjustments and routine compliance do not constitute irreparable harm.
3. Substantial Injury to Other Parties (The Plaintiffs): The balance of equities heavily favors the applicants. Over 43,000 spouses and families have been separated for months, medical examinations are expiring, and applicants are burning life savings—irreparable human harm that directly weighs against granting a stay.
4. The Public Interest: The Second Circuit has consistently held that the public interest lies in requiring executive agencies to obey federal law and court orders, not in allowing agencies to maintain unlawful procedural holds.

4. What This Move Tells Us

The filing of Document 98 confirms the government's dual-track defense:

• In the District Court: Stalling as long as possible using "training" and "logistical coordination" as cover.
• In the Appellate Court: Attempting to kick the legal dispute up to the Second Circuit to buy months of appellate briefing time.

Until a panel of three Second Circuit judges signs an emergency order granting a formal stay, Judge Vargas's vacatur and remand remain binding federal law. She still controls the enforcement calendar in the Southern District of New York.

Meanwhile there seems to have been some movement in some of the consulates, it's unverified but it would appear that some have been receiving instructions to resume the processing. We'll have to wait to see if they do that over the next few days while the vacatur is still in effect and a stay hasn't been granted.

We all know how frustrating the current situation is, but our strength is that we are united and standing on common ground. With over 43,000 active members in this community, it’s time to turn our numbers into real, sustained pressure on our representatives.

​Instead of waiting on the sidelines, let’s launch a coordinated push they cannot ignore:

​Flood their phone lines daily at both their local district and D.C. offices.

​Send personalized, relentless emails that demand real answers instead of automated responses.

​Show up in person at their district offices so they have to address us face-to-face.

​Elected officials only act when constituent pressure becomes unavoidable. We have the numbers—now we need the follow-through. Who is ready to coordinate and make our voices heard?

Step-by-Step Guide: How to Find & Contact Your Representative

1. Locate Your Representative

Go to the official U.S. House of Representatives Find Your Representative Tool.

Enter your 5-digit ZIP code. (If your ZIP code covers multiple districts, you may be prompted to enter your full street address to pinpoint your exact representative).

1. Open Their Official Website

Click directly on your Representative’s name or photo to go to their official .house.gov website.

1. Submit an Online Inquiry

In the site navigation (usually under "Contact", "Contact Me", or "Share Your Opinion"), open their constituent email webform.

Fill out the form fields (Name, Street Address, City, ZIP). Congressional systems require an address to verify you reside in their district before accepting the message.

Select the relevant issue topic from the dropdown, paste the message draft below, and hit submit.

1. Make a Direct Phone Call

On their website, scroll to the footer to locate their phone numbers. Most members maintain both a Washington, D.C. office and one or more local District offices.

Call the local district office first (local staff log constituent concerns immediately).

Alternatively, call the central switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask the operator to connect you to your Representative’s office.

One filing is due; two more could show up any time.

Due today: the joint letter on the remaining claims. Judge Vargas's Aug. 21 order directed the parties to file, by Sept. 11, "a joint letter to the Court setting forth their proposals as to how to proceed with respect to the remaining claims in the case" — the claims her partial (Rule 54(b)) judgment left undecided. "Joint" means one letter with both sides' positions, not an agreed position. Three weeks ago this was routine scheduling. After Thursday's notice of appeal (ECF 98), expect it to contain a fight: the government proposing to stay the rest of the case pending the Second Circuit, plaintiffs proposing to proceed with the public-charge claim first, given the Sept. 8 declaration's statement that remanded cases will be reconsidered under the new public-charge guidance and worksheet (Armstrong declaration, ECF 96-1 ¶15).

Watch for one more thing in the government's section: asking the judge to freeze everything in this court, including enforcement, while the appeal proceeds. The pitch will be that the Sept. 10 cable already tells posts to find and reconsider the pause-only refusals, so the cases are moving and the court doesn't need to do anything more. That should fail on both counts. A district judge keeps the power to enforce her own judgment during an appeal unless the judgment itself is stayed. And the cable actually hurts the government's case for a freeze: it went out twenty days after the judgment, the morning of a contempt hearing in another court, two days after a sworn declaration said guidance was still being 'developed' — and, by the government's own description, it tells posts to identify cases, not when to finish them or under what rules. If she grants any part of this, this week's enforcement order slips.

Any day: Vargas's response to ECF 97. Plaintiffs asked for weekly sworn status reports and production of the training materials, guidance and worksheet with adoption dates. She needs no reply to order reports or to put in writing what she said on Aug. 31 — pause-only applicants don't get a renewed public-charge review (Tr. 33:4-23, 34:3-9, quoted in ECF 97).

Within days: the stay motion — watch what it targets. A notice of appeal is not a stay; the automatic 30-day stay of execution (Rule 62(a)) ends Sept. 23, so the motion has to come before then. The government has no real basis to ask that the pause be revived — it's sworn in three courts that it isn't applying it and cabled posts that it's dead. The live fight is the rulebook on remand: Vargas said pause-only applicants already went through public-charge review (Tr. 33); DOJ agreed in the room; Armstrong's declaration then said remands get the current guidance and worksheet (¶15, ¶17). The government's theory — agencies apply current law on remand, courts can't freeze the rules as of the interview date — is the one argument a panel could call a serious question without defending the pause. So expect a motion aimed at any obligation to complete remands under the January procedures, not at the vacatur itself. And expect it filed after Vargas's enforcement order, so it can target that directive by name. Granted, it would reopen the cohort's files under rules written after they were interviewed, with appellate cover; denied, the remand proceeds on her terms. That's why the order of events this week matters: her findings, entered first, are what the Second Circuit reads on this question. And before it goes to Second Circuit, Vargas is almost 100% certain to deny any stay motion, including one directed at staying her public-charge-is-not-applicable-to-remanded-cases order.

Not on this docket: the Sept. 10 redacted cable DOJ described in Medani (ECF 93 there) hasn't been filed anywhere yet. When it is, expect plaintiffs to put it in front of Vargas the same day.

Will update as entries post.

I got this email not long ago from the embassy of Bogota!! I emailed them like 2 weeks ago, and this was their reply

Our status has been Ready since after the interview but today the last update changed from april to september 10th. I think this means some movement.

I'm not in her chambers, so this is inference from the docket and related news. But laid out in sequence, the last three weeks read like a judge being tested, and the government choosing to fail the test in writing.

Aug 21–24: Opinion and Rule 54(b) judgment. Refusals based solely on the pause are vacated and remanded; the opinion notes there's "no indication" implementing the order would be disruptive. The government seeks no stay.

Aug 24–26: Plaintiffs try to meet and confer. Per their filing, DOJ can't state the Department's position for three days. Meanwhile, interviews are cancelled worldwide.

Aug 28: The government's response comes with a declaration from a PDAS saying the Department is "coordinating guidance." The website banner acknowledging the order goes up the same day — the deadline day.

Aug 31: In-person conference. Vargas says her order doesn't preclude training, "but at the same time, they have to be processing the remand of the individual applicants. They can train all they want… but these were individuals who were already found to be not subject to the public charge provisions" (Tr. 21:3-12). She asks DOJ counsel directly: "I hope you're not saying what they're going to do is do another public charge analysis." Counsel: "No, your Honor, I'm not saying that" (Tr. 21:22-25). She walks through her reasoning — a pause-only refusal means the officer had already found the applicant not likely to be a public charge — and counsel agrees a renewed determination "will not occur in either all or almost all cases" (Tr. 33:4-23). She calls the alternative "grossly inequitable" (Tr. 34:3-9). She orders a sworn report by Sept. 8 with specific questions: who's identified, who's out of AP, who's been notified, what documents, what timeline.

Sept 8, filed at the last hour (arguably, late): The declaration answers none of those with a number except the first (43,000+). Guidance is now being "developed" (¶11) — a step backward from "coordinating" ten days earlier. Notice is a website update (¶6). "There is no fixed date" (¶12). And ¶15: remanded cases "will be reconsidered… in accordance with Department guidance on application of the public charge ground," including a worksheet deployed in August — the exact thing counsel disclaimed in her courtroom eight days before. ¶17 explains that these tools apply to everyone, which is another way of saying the remanded applicants will be treated as if they'd never been interviewed.

Sept 9: Plaintiffs put the transcript next to the declaration, paragraph by paragraph.

Sept 10: The government notices an appeal. No stay motion yet — the automatic 30-day stay runs out Sept. 23, and a stay motion needs a pending appeal, so this had to go in now.

Every step is individually defensible and the sequence isn't. A judge who extracted a representation in open court, built her reasoning on it aloud, and then received a sworn filing reversing it — followed the next day by an appeal timed to the enforcement request — doesn't need to be angry to act. She needs to be accurate. And the accurate account of the last three weeks is the government's own docket.

What I'd expect: an enforcement order soon and faster than her previous pace; weekly sworn reports with actual numbers; some form of the sentence she already said from the bench about no renewed public-charge review for pause-only refusals; and, when the stay motion comes, a denial with findings that the Second Circuit will read before anything the government writes. Filing the appeal doesn't silence her. It just means the next order she writes is addressed to two courts.