Just a couple of hours ago, Judge Leon published his decision on the Ivanov lawsuits (which includes the three combined lawsuits of Ivanov, Chersak and Saito).

He decided to give a “plaintiffs only” decision saying that the DV pause and 75 country pause cannot be applied to the named plaintiffs.

If you want you can see my live session about the order here:


Now – let me address something that is causing some debate.

There is a section of the memorandom of opinion that discusses the “Karimova” issue (which is what affects 221g cases). The Judge actually sided with the government on the unlawful-withholding/unreasonable-delay/mandamus claims. Judge Leon holds that once a consular officer issues a formal refusal under INA § 221(g), that refusal is the “discrete action” the agency owed the applicant — there’s nothing left to compel. So – in other words the plaintiffs could not bring a claim for unreasonable delay or mandamus claim – because the agency had taken a “final action”.

HOWEVER, this delay/mandamus ruling is a separate claim from the merits challenge to the Pauses themselves. Earlier in the opinion (Parts on the APA claims), the judge independently found the State DV Pause and the Public Charge Pause substantively unlawful — arbitrary and capricious for failing to reasonably explain their sweeping, categorical scope, and (for the Public Charge Pause) unlawful for supplanting the individualized public-charge inquiry Congress required. Losing on Karimova doesn’t erase that separate merits victory — it just means plaintiffs can’t force the agency’s hand through a delay/mandamus theory.

In short: Karimova killed the delay/mandamus vehicle (procedural “make them act” claim) — a government win — but the reconsideration order flows from the entirely separate merits holding that the Pauses themselves were unlawfully adopted. The two rulings aren’t in tension; they’re answering different questions (was there an unreasonable delay in acting, versus was the policy that produced the refusal itself lawful).

The net result is that the order instructs the government to reconsider the 221g cases without the pauses. Of course, if the case still has some other reason to be in 221g then this order won’t change that, but if the 221g was ONLY because of the 75 country pause or DV pause then those barriers are now considered unlawful for the named plaintiffs and those people on 221g can expect to get issued.

Please watch the video above for more answers about how I expect things will work from here – but understand that this is a new situation with many things happening – so be patient!