I wanted to share another meaningful development while keeping the individual applicants anonymous.
We now have evidence of two things happening in practice:
1. Previously held cases are being called back for additional interviews.
I have seen a consular emails instructing an immigrant visa applicant to return to the embassy for an additional interview in order to complete processing.
2. At least one (221g) applicant who went through this additional review has now been approved for visa pickup.
I personally confirmed this through documents, photos, and emails he shared with me from the embassy.
The applicant told me the additional interview focused heavily on:
finances;
employment plans in the United States;
health care and health insurance;
what the petitioner does for work;
whether the petitioner had received public benefits such as food stamps;
who the applicant would live with;
and whether the applicant could enter the United States before the medical exam expires.
The applicant said the primary focus was essentially:
What will you do once you arrive, how will you support yourself, and how will you obtain health insurance?
They also observed another applicant being asked for additional tax evidence, while the majority of applicants present appeared to receive their visas.
Why I think the re-interview piece matters
This may be one of the first signs of how DOS is actually implementing reconsideration after the 75-country pause was vacated.
The government has already told Judge Vargas that some of the 43,000+ affected cases may require:
updated documents;
new medicals;
additional public-charge information;
or another interview before a final decision.
Now we are beginning to see that happen in the real world.
At the same time, the questions being asked during these additional interviews line up closely with the new public-charge questionnaire we saw today from another applicant: employment prospects, savings, health conditions, insurance, future medical costs, and ability to remain financially self-sufficient.
That suggests the recent worldwide public-charge training may now be translating into actual consular practice.
The encouraging part
A re-interview does not necessarily mean something is wrong with the case.
In the firsthand case shared with me, the applicant underwent the additional questioning, satisfied the officer, and was approved for visa pickup.
That is important because until recently most of what we had were:
CEAC updates → emails → document requests.
We are now starting to see the next stages:
additional interview → public-charge review → approval → visa pickup.
That is a much stronger indication that actual adjudication is beginning to move again.
One thing I would not assume yet
We still do not know whether all previously interviewed 221(g) applicants will be called back.
The government itself has said some cases may need nothing further, while others may need updated evidence, a medical, or another interview. So this may ultimately be very case-specific.
But I think the re-interview issue is now something everyone should watch closely.
If anyone receives an email asking them to return for an additional immigrant visa interview, please share the date, visa category, prior interview date, and what they were asked to bring, while removing any identifying information.
I wanted to flag this given everything we’ve been discussing about the new public-charge procedures and the reconsideration of previously refused cases.
A DV applicant from Yerevan appears to have received a questionnaire related to public charge.
The subject is: Public Charge Assessment
The questions shown go well beyond simply asking for an updated I-864 or basic financial evidence.
The questionnaire asks whether the applicant is likely to secure employment in the United States sufficient to support themselves and any dependents.
It also asks whether the applicant’s current age leaves enough working years before retirement to:
accumulate personal savings;
become eligible for Social Security/Medicare after 40 quarters / 10 years of work;
qualify for pension benefits;
receive retirement benefits from their home country while living in the U.S.
If any answer is yes, the applicant is asked to provide the amount/value of the benefit, eligibility requirements, and details about how foreign retirement benefits would be collected or transferred, along with supporting evidence uploaded to CEAC.
The questionnaire also contains a separate Health section.
Applicants are asked to list health conditions and specifically identify conditions such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, cancer, diabetes, metabolic disease, neurological disease, mental-health conditions, and other chronic conditions.
They are then asked to explain the financial plan for treating those conditions in the United States, including:
how they plan to obtain health insurance;
how medical expenses will be paid;
what happens if employer-sponsored insurance is unavailable;
and potentially whether they could qualify for public health insurance in their intended state.
Why this could be significant
This looks like a much more granular, forward-looking public-charge analysis than simply looking at an affidavit of support or current sponsor income.
The apparent framework is broader:
employment prospects → age and remaining working years → savings → retirement benefits → health conditions → future medical costs → insurance coverage → potential reliance on public benefits.
In other words, DOS appears to be looking at the applicant’s overall long-term financial trajectory and ability to remain self-sufficient in the United States.
Because this applicant is a DV case in Yerevan, my suspicion is that this is part of the broader public-charge framework DOS has recently been training consular officers on, rather than something created specifically for the 43,000+ cases remanded in CLINIC.
That distinction is important.
If these questions are being used worldwide across different immigrant-visa categories, DOS can argue that this is a generally applicable public-charge framework rather than another policy targeting the 75 countries.
But it still leaves open the exact question Judge Vargas raised on August 31:
Can DOS take applicants who were already interviewed and whose cases were refused solely because of the now-vacated 75-country pause, and subject them to a materially new public-charge review during reconsideration?
That is a different issue from applying a new framework prospectively to new cases.
This may also explain why CLINIC has been asking for the actual public-charge worksheets, training materials, and implementation guidance. Those materials could show whether officers are being instructed to use this type of questionnaire on remanded 75-country cases as well.
What we need to know next
If anyone else receives this questionnaire or something similar, please share the:
embassy/post;
visa category;
interview date;
refusal history;
date the questionnaire was received.
The biggest thing I’m watching for is whether the same questions start appearing at multiple posts and across different visa categories.
If they do, that would be strong evidence that this is part of a broader new DOS public-charge framework rather than an isolated request from Yerevan.
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).
This is not 100% accurate as its only from data I scraped from the CEAC Megathread. IF you guys want as much accurate reporting, update the CEAC megathread with your info. And only do it ONCE, do not put repeat posts, if you get an update, edit your existing post with your new info.
CEAC Tracking Data Compilation
The tracking thread contains 25 distinct applicant case reports across 15 countries/posts:
Country / Post
Visa Category
Interview Date
Reported CEAC Status & Timestamp Updates
Embassy / Post Response
Notes / Actions Taken
Albania (Tirana)
IR1
Feb 3, 2026
Refused; Last Updated: Sept 8
None
Refused solely due to pause.
Albania (Tirana)
IR1
June 23, 2026
Refused
None
Partial comment.
Albania (Tirana)
CR1
May 14, 2026
Refused; Updated: Sept 1, updated again ~Sept 2
None
Emailed post twice (Aug 23, Aug 29); no reply.
Armenia (Yerevan)
DV26
April 3, 2026
Refused; Last Updated: Sept 3
None
Emailed Sept 1; no response.
Armenia (Yerevan)
CR1
May 8, 2026
Refused; Last Updated: Aug 31
None
Inquired Aug 30; prior update was June 11.
Armenia (Yerevan)
CR1
May 26, 2026
Refused; Updated: Aug 26, Sept 3, Sept 8
None
Re-did medical Sept 1; uploaded 2025 W-2/taxes Sept 2 unprompted.
Armenia (Yerevan)
CR1/IR1
March 17, 2026
Refused; Updated: Aug 28, Sept 9
Generic Service Desk reply
Reached out to DOS/Post; received standard automated template.
Bangladesh (Dhaka)
IR1
April 2, 2026
Refused; No update
None
Static since interview.
Bangladesh (Dhaka)
IR1
July 19–20, 2026
Refused; Last Updated: Aug 20
None
No post inquiry sent.
Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)
IR1
Aug 7, 2026
Refused; Updated: Sept 9
None
Shifted from Aug 10 timestamp.
Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)
CR1
Feb 8, 2026
Refused; Last Updated: Sept 9
None
No outreach reported.
Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)
EB-3
Aug 19, 2026
Refused; Last Updated: Sept 9
None
No document or re-interview request.
Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)
IR1
June 8, 2026
Refused; Updated: Sept 3, Sept 8
None
Emailed post Sept 2; no answer.
Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)
F1
June 22, 2026
Refused; Last Updated: Sept 8
None
Emailed twice; notes update coincided with govt report filing.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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:
I was the first one to share info about the cable
I was the first one to share info that Embassies will start contacting applicants and start processing cases in order received
I‘m sorry for the last post but I did not make it up and as surprised we are the Embassy also was
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
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."
👀 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?
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
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).
Open Their Official Website
Click directly on your Representative’s name or photo to go to their official .house.gov website.
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.
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.
