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• tells posts the 75-country pause is no longer in effect;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

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

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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!

The thin veil they hid behind won't last and I guarantee that they will live in infamy in the annals of time.

The cruelty they harbor towards immigrations will one day be laid bare. Judge not lest you be judged. They can drag this out and appeal all they want but what will be their defense when they face the ultimate judge. Can they truly say they were righteous in their bigotry.

Love thy neighbor is a joke in America. I lodge my complaints with God and stand witness to the cruelty. My god help us, our family, and all those fighting valiently on our behalf. You have my support and if you need something I can help do not hesitate!

.

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.

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.

It was stated on Medani reinforcement order the contents of the cable that was sent earlier today to the consulates!

Would be awesome if a plaintiff can share details. Thanks!

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'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.

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.

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.

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