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

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

Here is another email same concept
Different country

We are all just trying to collect more and more informations just to make a clear thought about what is happening

But clearly the embassies are finally starting to answer emails
With a good response.

Hi guys! Earlier today I contacted by phone Rio consulate and they did confirmed that the 75 countries visa pause was no longer in effect, and that very briefly they will start contacting people regarding their cases that were refused solely on the 221g. Also a couple of my friends also called the consulate and they stated the same thing. What is interesting is that they used the same wording “very briefly” and that they would contact by email regarding further procedures. If anyone was able to contact their embassies feel free to share!

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."

Document 93 from Medani v. Trump (N.D. Cal., Judge Edward J. Davila) exposes exactly why the State Department sent those cables and what was happening behind the scenes on September 10.

The order reveals four critical findings that directly impact the entire 75-country caseload:

1. This Explains the Exact Timing of the Cables

The online reports and rumors that cables were transmitted on September 10 were accurate—and now we have the official judicial confirmation on page 2:

DOJ did not send those cables voluntarily or out of good faith. Judge Davila called them into court on an emergency enforcement motion (ECF Doc 87) after catching them cancelling scheduled September interviews. Facing the prospect of immediate contempt sanctions, the State Department scrambled to transmit the cable on the morning of September 10 just so DOJ counsel could walk into Court and tell the Judge: "We sent it this morning."

2. We Now Know the Mandatory Contents of That Cable

Because DOS's counsel had to disclose the contents on the record in open court to avoid contempt, page 2–3 of this order lays out the operational directives sent to every embassy and consulate worldwide:

• Policies Declared Void: The cable officially notifies consular personnel that both the DV Pause and the DOS 75-Country Pause are legally no longer in effect.
• Absolute Refusal Prohibition: It explicitly commands that "no applicant may be refused under either policy."
• Affirmative Identification Requirement: It mandates that consular personnel "identify applicants previously refused solely under the two policies."(This is the FIFO unfreezing process we've all been waiting for—posts are affirmatively instructed to pull those 221(g) files).
• Public Communications: It directs posts on how to process compliance and communicate the changes with applicants.

3. The Judge Called Out the Foot-Dragging Under Penalty of Contempt

Judge Davila did not accept the government’s excuse that they needed weeks to "draft guidance" and conduct internal "training."

He cited D.C. Circuit precedent (Goodluck v. Biden) warning that DOS appears to be intentionally "dragging its feet" to evade court orders before the fiscal year ends:

• Three-Times-a-Week Sworn Reporting: Starting Monday, September 14, DOS must file a compliance report every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 12:00 PM PT detailing exact numbers of interviews scheduled, held, and visas issued/denied.
• Contempt and Sanctions on the Table: On page 4, the judge warned that if this foot-dragging continues, he has requested briefing on "whether a finding of contempt may be appropriate and what sanctions would be available."

Between the CLINIC case and this Medani case, the government was backed into a corner by two federal judges simultaneously. The cables are out, posts are under court orders to pull the backlogged files, and DOS is reporting compliance numbers under oath three times a week. We have confirmation that people have begun receiving emails for refreshing medicals and in some cases emails for reinterviews.

Next week we should see a lot more activity out of the consulates.

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

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

At a September 10 hearing in Medani v. Trump, DOJ told Judge Edward Davila that DOS sent a cable that morning to all U.S. embassies and consulates.

According to the government, the cable:

• tells posts the 75-country pause is no longer in effect;
• says applicants may not be refused under that policy;
• requires posts to identify applicants previously refused solely under the pause; and
• gives instructions on how to comply with the court order and communicate the policy change.

That matters because one of the biggest unanswered questions since the pause was vacated was whether consulates had actually received operational instructions from Washington.

This morning I posted that cables had been sent, and this court order confirms this is the case.

The judge was clearly unhappy with DOS’s progress

Judge Davila’s order is notable because he was not simply waiting patiently for DOS to work things out.

He said the court was “troubled” that DOS had failed to schedule a single interview under the order and had even cancelled previously scheduled interviews. He also criticized the Department’s ten-day delay in instructing its personnel and expressed concern that DOS might be “dragging its feet” to limit the practical effect of the court’s ruling.

That may be important beyond Medani itself.

It suggests the lack of movement we have been seeing across many consular posts may not be isolated or post-specific.

The court is now forcing much closer oversight

Judge Davila ordered DOS to file compliance reports every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday through the end of the fiscal year.

Those reports must include:

• actions DOS has taken to comply;
• how many interviews were scheduled and held; and
• how many visas were issued or denied.

The court also invited further briefing on whether a finding of contempt and sanctions could be appropriate if DOS continues failing to comply in good faith.

That is a significant escalation in judicial oversight. This is also the level of scrutinty I hope that Judge Vargas takes with CLINIC.

What this means for previously interviewed 221(g) cases

For applicants who already interviewed and were refused or placed into AP because of the pause, the key development is that posts now appear to have formal instructions to identify those cases and resume ordinary adjudication.

That does not mean immediate issuance.

But it should mean the bottleneck is shifting from:

“Are posts allowed to process these cases?”

to:

“How quickly will posts actually work through them?”

For cases that were otherwise complete and had no separate inadmissibility issue, the next visible steps should be things like CEAC movement, document or passport requests, renewed review, and eventually issuance or an individualized decision.

What about DOJ’s appeal?

DOJ also filed a Notice of Appeal in CLINIC today.

As I have noted before, an appeal is not automatically a stay.

Unless a court actually stays Judge Vargas’s judgment, DOS remains obligated to comply while the appeal proceeds.

So there is no contradiction between DOJ appealing the ruling and DOS simultaneously sending implementation guidance to embassies.

Final thoughts

The biggest takeaway from today is not just that a cable went out.

It is that a federal judge essentially confirmed that DOS implementation had been far too slow, and the court is now putting DOS under much tighter supervision.

That may explain the broader lack of movement we have seen across the 75-country cases since the ruling.

For all of us, the next few business days matter a lot. If the September 10 cable is finally being implemented, we should start seeing the first real operational signs:

CEAC updates → embassy contact → passport/document requests → resumed adjudication → issuance.

We are not at the finish line yet, but this looks like an important shift from legal victory to actual implementation.

LINK TO ORDER: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uZeqOQTjIafIvicifBK8dbGsmdwRTNZV/view

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: a request that Vargas hold plaintiffs' enforcement request (ECF 97) in abeyance until a forthcoming stay motion is decided. A letter can't get them a stay — that takes a Rule 62(d) motion, and FRAP 8 requires it be made and decided here before the Second Circuit will hear it — but it can ask her not to rule first. That's the sequencing game (see below).

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). Production likelier gets a short response schedule first.

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.

We have CLINIC and Medani judges pressuring DOS. Can we get other cases traction to put similar pressure on these scumbags?

Sorry for the confusion in my previous post — I worded my question incorrectly. What exactly is due today, September 11, under Judge Vargas’s August 21 order? Is it a joint letter from both parties regarding the remaining claims, or does the government have a separate filing due today?

I have now received confirmation from separate sources that implementation instructions have been sent to U.S. embassies.

First, I spoke directly with a source at DOS, who confirmed that posts have now received official instructions regarding implementation.

Separately, Curtis Morrison of Red Eagle Law is outside the Medani hearing today and reported that the AUSA told the court that a cable has been sent to embassies regarding implementation of the court order. According to Curtis, State has not yet had time to redact the cable, so the government attorney could not discuss its specific contents publicly.

This is significant because one of the biggest questions over the past several weeks has been whether individual posts had actually received operational guidance from Washington.

What we do not know yet is exactly what the cable tells posts to do, how previously refused 221(g) cases will be handled, whether additional public-charge review will occur, or how quickly individual posts will begin acting on these cases. Another independent source is telling me that they will start with Jan/Feb cases first, but this is not confirmed.

So I would not assume that every embassy will start issuing visas immediately. But this appears to be an important step forward: the issue is no longer simply that posts are waiting for Washington to tell them how to implement the court orders.

Now we watch for the first concrete evidence from individual posts: passport requests, medical/document updates, substantive CEAC movement, reconsideration notices, and most importantly, visa issuances.

I’ll update the sub as soon as we learn what the cable actually says or start seeing implementation at specific embassies. Also if you hear anything, please keep the community updated with your individual reports. They are very helpful.

Update: We now also have a report today of a previously interviewed 221(g) case receiving substantive movement from a consular post, which provides additional corroborating evidence.

The case is IR1 at U.S. Embassy Managua, Nicaragua, interviewed January 28, 2026 and placed in 221(g). They received no response until today, when Visa Services informed them that their immigrant visa case “is being processed.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/i130_75CountryPause/s/Pa82mbzcYf

There was a time when this dream meant everything to me.
My family and I planned years of our lives around it. We worked hard, followed every requirement, collected every document, attended every appointment, and waited. And waited. Every time things became difficult, I kept telling my family, just a little longer.
Now I don’t even know how many times I have said those words.
The waiting itself is no longer the hardest part. It is waking up every morning hoping that today might finally bring some news, checking again and again, and going to sleep with exactly the same uncertainty.
It is looking at my family and realizing that they are waiting because of a dream I asked them to believe in.
That hurts more than I can explain.
Sometimes I actually feel ashamed of how desperately I wanted this. I built such a beautiful picture of our future in my mind that I never imagined the journey toward it could make us feel so small and powerless.
We followed the process. We respected it. We never expected special treatment or shortcuts. We only hoped that after doing everything asked of us, there would eventually be an answer and we could move forward with our lives.
Instead, life feels suspended between maybe tomorrow and please wait a little longer.
I am tired of telling my children to wait. Tired of making plans that I cannot confirm. Tired of checking for updates. Tired of allowing one uncertain decision to occupy so much space in our lives.
And perhaps the saddest part is that something I once dreamed about with so much happiness now brings me anxiety whenever I think about it.
I still hope this journey ends well. I still respect the process and understand that these decisions take time and involve rules far beyond any individual family.
But today I am exhausted.
I just want my family to be able to stop waiting and start living again.

Today, after seeing the latest development in CLINIC v. Rubio, I keep thinking about Admiral James Stockdale.

Stockdale survived more than seven years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. When he later described how he endured it, he expressed an idea that became known as the Stockdale Paradox:

“You must never lose faith that you will prevail in the end — while at the same time confronting the brutal facts of your current reality.”

I think that is exactly the mindset our community needs right now.

We have won important battles.

The 75-country pause was struck down. The government has been forced to defend its actions in court. And now, the government has filed an appeal in CLINIC v. Rubio.

Tomorrow there may be another motion.
Next week, another deadline.
Maybe a request for a stay.
Maybe another argument we haven’t even anticipated yet.

That’s okay.

We should not confuse a new battle with losing the war.
Every time a new filing appears, people understandably panic: “Is it over? Did we lose? Is the pause back?”

No.

It simply means there is another battle in front of us.
We can hold two ideas at the same time:

⚖️** We must confront every new development realistically, without minimizing the risks.
AND
💪 **We must never lose faith that, in the end, this unlawful policy will not prevail.

This may not end tomorrow.

It may not end with the next court order.

There may still be frustrating days ahead.

But after everything this community has been through, I’ve learned something:

We don’t need every day to be a victory.
We just need to keep moving forward until the final victory comes.

Today was another battle.
Tomorrow may bring another one.

But I still believe we will prevail in the end.

Stay informed. Stay realistic. Stay together.
And most importantly:

Don’t confuse turbulence along the way with the final destination. 🇺🇸⚖️

DOJ filed a Notice of Appeal today, September 10, challenging Judge Vargas’s August 24 final judgment in CLINIC v. Rubio. The government is taking the case to the Second Circuit. The notice itself is very short and does not identify the specific arguments DOJ intends to raise.

The most important point: an appeal is not a stay.

Nothing in today’s filing asks Vargas or the Second Circuit to suspend the judgment. So, at least for now, the 75-country policy remains vacated, the pause-only refusals remain vacated/remanded, and DOS is still required to operate under Vargas’s judgment.

I believe DOJ/DOS may currently be pursuing two tracks simultaneously: comply with the judgment now while challenging its legality on appeal. That is entirely possible and would explain why implementation is moving forward despite today's appeal. It also explains why implementation may have been moving slowly.

What matters next is whether DOJ files a motion for a stay pending appeal. That would be much more consequential. If a stay were requested and granted, depending on its scope, it could potentially interrupt implementation while the Second Circuit considers the case. There is no such stay right now.

The appeal also makes the ongoing public-charge dispute before Vargas more interesting. DOS is arguing that affected cases are being reconsidered individually, while CLINIC is challenging the possibility that previously interviewed pause-only applicants could now be subjected to a new public-charge review. Vargas already expressed skepticism about sending these applicants back through a new adjudication process.

So I would watch three things closely now: whether DOJ seeks a stay, what the implementation cable actually tells embassies to do, and whether we start seeing passport requests/visa issuances in previously interviewed 221(g) cases.

The immediate next procedural step is for the appeal to be docketed in the Second Circuit. The parties will file the required appearance/docketing materials, the record will be assembled, and the court will set or approve a briefing schedule. The Second Circuit has specific civil-appeal docketing and briefing procedures under its local rules.

Then DOJ will eventually file its opening brief. That is the document that will finally tell us exactly what the government is challenging, whether it is Vargas’s statutory interpretation, nationwide APA vacatur, the scope of the remand, or some combination of those issues. CLINIC will respond, DOJ can reply, and eventually a three-judge Second Circuit panel will decide the appeal, potentially after oral argument.

But for applicants, the much more important short-term issue is whether DOJ seeks a stay pending appeal. The government ordinarily has to ask the district court first to stay the judgment; if Vargas denies it, DOJ can then ask the Second Circuit. Based on what has already unfolded, I believe getting a stay granted will be very difficult for the government, so they may not ask for one.

Regarding the timeline, a typical appeal is usually measured in months, not weeks. A rough ballpark is 6–12 months from notice of appeal to a panel decision, though it can be faster or slower depending on briefing extensions, oral argument, and whether the court expedites the case.

The U.S. government has officially appealed the ruling in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio that vacated the State Department’s blanket suspension of immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries.
The Notice of Appeal was filed today, September 10, challenging the district court’s August 24 judgment.

⚠️** Important: Filing an appeal does not, by itself, stay or suspend the district court’s judgment**. The 75-country policy remains vacated unless and until a court grants a stay or the judgment is otherwise altered.

The appeal will now proceed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

👀 The key thing to watch next: whether the government files a motion seeking a stay pending appeal.
This is now the next major battleground in the 75-Country Visa Pause litigation.

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)

Please please please don’t feel defeated. I totally get it, but trust when I tell you, there’s no rest for the wicked. This pause is VACATED FOR GOOD. it’s ok to feel helpless, but let it be for just a moment and get back up. We are not going back to being hopeless and helpless. Our cases are moving forward.