Court Considers Injunction Against State Department Immigration 'Pause' for Bangladesh Nationals

Shariot Ullah and Nur Ullah filed the motion against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Helen LaFave, Chargé d'Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh, challenging what they characterize as a blanket rule affecting family-sponsored immigrant visa applications. The case centers on Nur Ullah's visa application, which was denied under Immigration and Nationality Act section 221(g) as part of what the Embassy described as a broader 'pause' on applications from Bangladesh nationals.

The plaintiffs argue that the State Department's January 14, 2026 rule violates congressional requirements for individual adjudication of visa applications. In their motion, they assert that 'Congress required consular officers to decide family-sponsored immigrant visa applications one applicant at a time' and that 'Defendants are not doing that here.' The motion contends that rather than making a case-specific finding about Nur Ullah's eligibility, the Embassy applied a categorical rule based on nationality.

According to the filing, Embassy Dhaka informed Nur Ullah that 'as a result of this pause,' his case 'has been found ineligible' under section 221(g). The plaintiffs argue this demonstrates 'enforcement of the January 14, 2026 Department rule against nationals of Bangladesh' rather than individualized consideration of Nur Ullah's circumstances.

The motion seeks specific relief requiring the defendants to 'resume and complete lawful, case-by-case adjudication under the INA' within twenty-one days. Notably, the plaintiffs clarify they are 'not ask[ing] the Court to order visa issuance' but only seeking 'lawful adjudication under the statutes Congress wrote, not for a ruling on any other admissibility issue.'

The case appears to challenge the application of what the plaintiffs characterize as a categorical pause on visa processing for Bangladesh nationals, raising questions about the extent to which immigration authorities can implement country-specific policies that may circumvent statutory requirements for individual case consideration.

The motion was filed on April 13, 2026, with plaintiffs' counsel certifying that defendants oppose the requested relief. The case presents issues at the intersection of immigration law, administrative procedure, and the scope of executive authority over visa processing.