Immigrant Visa Pause Update, October 17, 2026: Seoul's First Issuance, Dhaka and Kingston Issue Without a Second Interview, and the Government's Response to the Enforcement Order

Thirty records went into the tracker today from 44 threads, and 18 rows on the status table changed. Two posts that had never reported an issuance now have one. Seoul: a non-plaintiff IR1 first interviewed in mid-July, second interview 1 October, Issued about two weeks later. Dhaka: a relayed spouse case that went from a new medical to a passport request to Issued with no second interview at all. Kingston is using the same no-interview route, emailing non-plaintiffs on 15 October for a medical and a passport. On the court side, applicants summarise the government's 16 October response to the proposed enforcement order: two sworn reports a fortnight apart instead of twice-weekly reporting by post, no 30-day deadlines even for covered plaintiffs, and no disclosure of the new public-charge procedures. No order has been reported.

Seoul and Dhaka: first issuances

The Seoul case is first-hand. An Ethiopian national, not a plaintiff, was first interviewed in mid-July and given a second interview on 1 October. It ended with a 221(g) and no document request, the officer saying a few things would be checked, and CEAC read Issued about two weeks later. Until now Seoul's row said no re-interview reported and a template reply citing training; it now says some non-plaintiffs are being called.

The Dhaka case is relayed through family and we hold it as secondhand. A spouse given a 221(g) at a first interview around February had a new medical about four weeks ago, was asked for the passport two weeks later, and moved from Refused to Issued on 15 October without a second interview. Dhaka's row has carried conflicting reports for two weeks; this is the first issuance claimed there, and it arrived by the quietest route a post can take.

Kingston: medical and passport, no interview

On 15 October Kingston emailed a non-plaintiff F2A applicant and a non-plaintiff IR2 applicant to redo the medical and send in the passport. One was told to register for the courier. Neither email mentions a re-interview. An observer counts several IR2 cases moving the same day. Cairo is said to have issued without a re-interview in a very small number of cases. The re-interview guide now describes this route: if the email asks only for a medical and a passport, send both and do not wait for a date. The early cohort at Kingston is still waiting, including a 20 January first interview, the day before the pause took effect.

The government's response, as applicants read it

Community docket summary*: the government opposes the plaintiffs' proposed twice-weekly sworn reports by post, nationality and refusal ground as an unreasonable manual burden, and offers two sworn reports fourteen days apart with approximate totals and case-specific updates for named plaintiffs' applicants. It opposes 30-day adjudication deadlines even for covered plaintiffs, citing security checks, missing documents and visa availability, and warns that deadlines would produce more 221(g)s. It resists producing the revised public-charge guidance and questionnaires as beyond the judgment. Applicants' concern is the obvious one: aggregate totals cannot show which posts are idle. The order remains with the court.

Post by post

• Islamabad is reported to be giving 26 January first interviews re-interview dates of 2 November; a 6 February case waits. An early-September first interview cancelled for training has no date.
• Bogota: the self-booking portal is still failing. A 3 February IR1 told to arrange a second interview could not book and then received the training form letter; a March case has emailed without result. A September first-interview cancellation has nothing.
• Paris: applicants note that only public-charge refusals of pause-country nationals have been reported since the pause lifted, some after telephone interviews of under ten minutes. No approval posted.
• Frankfurt: a second early-October second interview read Issued on 16 October. The 13 August K-1 is still Ready with the passport held, nine weeks on.
• Montreal: a relayed report says re-interviews have started, but only for pause-country 221(g) cases; K-1 slots have not been released since February. Row moved from none to unclear.
• Ciudad Juarez: two approvals are stuck before passport return, one from 17 August with no collection email two months later, one that went Issued then back to Ready on 30 September.
• Lima: a DV case cancelled for 1 September was given 20 October, relayed, while a 15 September IR1 has nothing. Buenos Aires (23 September CR1), Kuala Lumpur (1 September expedited IR2) and Lagos (21 September spouse) report training cancellations with no new dates; all three are in the cancellation tracker.
• Mumbai: March documentarily-qualified cases have no interview letters; the post says dates will come by email and text. Madrid: a July F2A with no 221(g) has sat at Ready since September. Guangzhou: social-media screenshots claim reschedules; unverified. Manila: no K-1 reschedules at all.
• Nonimmigrant: an H-1B at Karachi got a pink 221(g) with a supplemental questionnaire and is still Refused five days after submitting it; a B1/B2 approved at Chennai on 13 October was Issued on the 15th.
• A DV-2026 selectee refused in May was emailed on 16 October to complete a new medical by the 19th for a possible re-interview on the 21st, with the post warning the 23 October issuance deadline may not leave time. Post not stated.

What to do with this

• If your post emails for a medical and a passport with no interview date, send both at once. Kingston, Dhaka and Cairo are issuing that way for some cases.
• If the portal will not let you book a second interview, email the post the same day with your case number and say the portal is failing; Bogota is also assigning dates directly by email.
• Your post's row is on the status-by-embassy table, with 18 rows changed today. If your report would change a row, add your case.

*Court items are summarised from applicants' accounts; we have not read the filings. Every figure here is from community-reported, anonymised cases. Not legal advice; not affiliated with the U.S. Department of State.