If your immigrant visa has been denied, delayed, or placed on hold, you may not have been told why. The reason could be a sweeping government directive that has frozen immigrant visa cases for nationals of 75 countries, regardless of the individual facts of each application. Brooks Law Firm is challenging this policy in federal court, and we are actively enrolling plaintiffs now.

The policy blocks or delays immigrant visas based on nationality alone. It does not consider the strength of your petition, your family ties to the United States, or how long your case has been pending. U.S. citizens waiting for spouses, parents, and children, and employers waiting for sponsored employees, have been left without explanation or a clear path forward.

We believe this policy is unlawful. Federal immigration law requires the government to review each case on its own facts. A blanket nationality-based ban bypasses that requirement entirely. We are taking this to federal court on behalf of the people it has harmed.

Our attorneys have experience in federal immigration litigation, including cases filed in federal district courts in New England. We are ready to review your situation and tell you directly whether you qualify to join.

Call Brooks Law Firm at (617) 245-8090 to find out if you qualify.

In recent months, the U.S. government issued a directive instructing consular officers to pause or refuse immigrant visas for nationals of a specific list of 75 countries. This directive was not passed by Congress, did not go through the standard public notice-and-comment process, and does not require officers to review the individual circumstances of each applicant’s case.

For thousands of people in the middle of legitimate immigration processes, this meant their cases were suddenly stopped. Approved visa petitions that had taken years to process were placed on hold. Families separated by the immigration system were told, in effect, to wait with no clear timeline.

The affected cases are immigrant visa cases in the consular process, meaning applicants whose cases are pending at the National Visa Center or at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. These are not people who entered illegally or cut corners. They followed the process, waited their turn, and are now being blocked by a policy applied to their nationality, not their case.

In June 2026, Brooks Law Firm secured a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, blocking the State Department’s Nationality-Based Pause as applied to our client’s immigrant visa case.

U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, concluding that the pause violates federal immigration law by overriding the individualized visa adjudication authority that Congress vested in consular officers. The ruling in Ullah v. LaFave and Rubio is one of only two such preliminary injunctions granted by a federal court in the country. The defendants are now ordered to immediately lift the pause as applied to our client’s case.

Brooks Law Firm is one of two firms in the entire country to achieve this result. 

This case is a mass action, meaning each participant joins as an individual plaintiff in the same federal lawsuit. Eligibility is reviewed case by case, but in general you may qualify if you meet the following criteria:

• You are a national of one of the 75 designated countries
• You have an approved immigrant visa petition
• Your case is currently pending with the National Visa Center or at a U.S. consulate
• Your visa has been denied, placed on hold, or you are at immediate risk of denial due to the current policy

In qualifying cases, the U.S. citizen or employer who filed the petition may also be eligible to join as a co-plaintiff. This case is focused on immigrant visa cases in the NVC and consular process only. It does not cover domestic USCIS benefits cases.

Not sure whether your case qualifies? Call us. We will review your situation and give you a direct answer.

This lawsuit is grounded in three primary legal frameworks:

The Immigration and Nationality Act

Congress established the standards by which immigrant visas must be evaluated. Those standards require individual adjudication based on the facts of each case. A blanket directive that substitutes nationality for individual review is inconsistent with what the law requires.

The Administrative Procedure Act

Federal agencies are generally required to give the public notice and an opportunity to comment before issuing binding rules. The government did not follow that process here. Under the APA, rules issued without that process are subject to challenge in federal court.

The Fifth Amendment

Where applicable, the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment may apply to individuals who have established ties to the United States through the visa petition process and who are being denied a fair adjudication of their claims.

Taken together, these legal arguments support our position that the government cannot substitute a blanket nationality-based policy for the individualized adjudication Congress required.

A mass action is not a class action. Here is what that distinction means for you and what to expect if you join:

1. Initial review. Call our office. We will review your case to confirm eligibility before you sign anything.
   
   
2. Engagement agreement. If you qualify, you will sign an engagement agreement that outlines the scope of representation and the fee. The fee to join is $2,500 per plaintiff. Review the agreement carefully, particularly if both the beneficiary and the petitioning U.S. citizen or employer will be joining.
   
   
3. You join as an individual plaintiff. Each participant is named individually in the federal lawsuit, not as part of an anonymous class. Relief is sought specifically for the people who join.
   
   
4. We file in federal court. We plan to file in a federal district court in New England where venue is proper. Participating plaintiffs will be notified of the filing venue once it is confirmed.
   
   
5. The case proceeds. We will seek relief as quickly as possible. Federal litigation rarely moves fast and results on even an expedited schedule often take months. We will update all plaintiffs by email and through periodic group calls throughout the process.
   
   
6. Potential outcome. A successful result would be a court order stopping the government from applying the visa pause to our plaintiffs’ cases and requiring individualized processing under ordinary legal standards. It would not automatically guarantee visa approval, but it would remove the policy barrier and require the government to actually decide each case on its facts.

Brooks Law Firm is an immigration and personal injury firm based in Medford, Massachusetts. Immigration is our primary practice, and it has been since the firm was founded. Our attorneys have represented clients across a wide range of immigration matters, from family-based petitions to asylum to removal defense to federal court actions.

We understand what is at stake for families and individuals caught in this situation. Many of our clients have been waiting years for cases that should have been straightforward. We are not treating this as a routine matter. We are treating it as what it is: a legal fight on behalf of people the system has failed.

Our office serves clients in English, Spanish, and Brazilian Portuguese. Consultations are confidential.

Enrollment in this mass action is active. The sooner you contact us, the more time we have to review your case before filing.

If your immigrant visa has been denied, put on hold, or you believe it is at risk because of the current policy, do not wait. Call Brooks Law Firm today to find out if you qualify to join.

Call (617) 245-8090 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation.