Immigrant Visa Pause Update, October 24, 2026: The Government Says Processing Continues but Fights Any Deadline, London Reschedules in a Batch, Two More Bogota Approvals, and the Rules That Changed This Week

Day 64. The government's answer to the district court arrived on Friday 23 October, and the question it had to address was the one every refused applicant has been asking since the appeals court's partial stay on 19 October: are the applications refused under the 75-country pause still being reconsidered? The answer, as applicants describe the filing, is yes. Everything after that word is about what the government will not agree to. Today's post takes the filing first, then the week's movement at the posts: a batch of new London dates, two more Bogota approvals, and a pattern of posts working in date order while skipping the oldest cases.

What the government told the court

Everything in this section is a community summary of the filing, not the document itself. The government says administrative processing of the pause-refused applications continues notwithstanding the 19 October stay, and that its lawyers confirmed on 23 October that the 10 September instructions to consular posts are unchanged. Those instructions tell each post to identify the immigrant visa applications it refused solely because of the pause, review them, contact applicants about missing documents, reassess eligibility, mark the original pause 221(g) as overcome, and record any independent legal basis if it refuses again. That is the operational answer, and it matches what the posts have been doing since late September.

The filing then draws a line that matters. The August judgment did two things: it vacated the pause policy, and it vacated and remanded each individual refusal made under it. The appeals court stayed only the second. The government's position is that it is reconsidering the cases voluntarily under its own instructions, and that the district court cannot compel that reconsideration through the part of the judgment that is stayed. It opposes the plaintiffs' request for deadlines and periodic reporting, and asks the court to defer any enforcement until the appeals court rules on the stay motion.

One disclosure is directly useful. The government says the pause-refused applications have been excepted from the in-person public charge training prerequisite for officers. Online training and adjudication review still apply, and applicants read the online training deadline as about 31 October. In practice this means a post does not have to finish its in-person training before re-interviewing a pause case, which is why re-interviews have continued at posts whose first interviews are still frozen. It does not exempt anyone from the public charge questions themselves.

What it means for an applicant: the stay did not stop re-interviews, and the government has now said so in writing. But there is no deadline, and the government is arguing that there cannot be one while the appeal is pending. The pace is the post's pace. Where that is five interviews a week, as at Bangkok, it stays five a week unless a court says otherwise.

The plaintiffs' reply, and numbers from the other suit

The plaintiffs asked the same day for leave to respond. Their argument is that the appeals court stayed part of the judgment, not all of it; the declaratory judgment and the vacatur of the policy stand, so the court can still require the government to explain how it is implementing them. They want regular reporting on the roughly 43,000 affected cases: how many pause refusals have been identified, how many overcome, how many remain pending, the grounds for any new refusals, and whether training or review requirements are holding cases up. They also want the implementation instructions, the public charge worksheets and the adjudication review materials, and they cite the existing statutory standards of 30 days for immediate relative and 60 days for other family immigrant visas. No ruling yet; the government may ask to reply.

A 21 October filing in the separate California suit put numbers on the pace, from the government's own figures. Of 216 plaintiffs in that suit refused under the pause, 4 have visas, 2 were refused again, 27 were scheduled for re-interview, 62 were contacted in some form, and 121 had no action at all, about eight weeks after the ruling. The filing attaches the 10 September cable, which told posts to work oldest first: from 20 December 2025 for diversity visa cases and 21 January 2026 for the pause cases. It says officers may require additional interviews as needed and are encouraged to reassess applicants in person given the time elapsed. Re-interviews are encouraged, not mandatory for every case. The appeals court, for its part, has set 18 December as the government's deadline for its opening brief on the merits, with the plaintiffs' answer due 30 to 90 days later; a decision on whether the stay stays in place is expected sooner, with no date.

London: a batch of new dates

London sent reschedule emails in a batch on 23 October, and they went to first interviews cancelled under the worldwide suspension rather than to pause re-interviews. K-1s cancelled for 17, 22 and 23 September got 13 and 17 November. A 9 September K-1 got early November, an 8 October K-1 got 20 November, and a 20 October K-1 got 10 December. Spouse and parent cases from 23 September got 6 November. An EB-3 cancelled on 13 October got 8 December, with a warning that it might move again, and an EB-2 from 20 October got 1 December. The appointment service pages were still showing the old dates that evening, so the email is the record for now. One applicant whose new date is early November will ask to push it back because the medical cannot be done in time; if that is you, ask before the date rather than after. The cancellations table has the new dates against the original ones.

Bogota: two more, at 06:45

Two more approvals at Bogota on 23 October, both at 06:45 appointments. A spouse first interviewed on 5 February had a new medical on 19 October, which demanded extra vaccinations although the earlier medical was complete, and a 15-minute second interview that went over the relationship again and then her own education, work history, current job, assets, bank balance and ability to support herself. Nothing was asked about the petitioner's finances; the post's email had asked only for the beneficiary's updated documents. The uploads were proof that she can join the petitioner's employer plan, a quote for gap coverage of about 180 dollars a month, an updated resume and a one-page summary of assets and liabilities. A parent case whose July follow-up had ended in a pause 221(g) was asked about her insurance plan, savings, pension, property and debt and approved in ten minutes; she saw many others approved the same morning. She had found the slot only by checking the portal several times a day after September's email produced no bookable date. Another applicant with the same September email still shows queued. The re-interview guide has the question list and the insurance notes.

Date order, with gaps

The cable said oldest first, and the posts that have started are mostly doing that, but with two kinds of gap. The first is cases that predate the pause. At Belgrade, an applicant first interviewed in December 2025 watches the post work through end-of-February first interviews, while someone from October 2025 did get a date. At Almaty, a case first interviewed in May 2025, whose administrative processing finished but could not be issued under the pause, sees family cases from December, January and now April called back while it waits; a generic reply and a later CEAC date change are all it has had. At Islamabad the invitations now cover first interviews from 21 January to 2 February, and a December 2025 administrative processing case has had no call. These cases were not refused under the pause so much as stranded by it, and the oldest-first instruction does not obviously reach them. If you are one, say so when you write to the post.

The second gap is capacity. Bangkok has one officer re-interviewing four or five people a week, on Tuesdays, and is now into February first interviews with a couple of March cases; applicants in each week's range report being passed over. An April first interview there does not expect a date before January. That is the pace the government is defending.

Silence, and small signs

Yerevan is silent again. CEAC touches on 8 October are reported for a plaintiff and a non-plaintiff alike, read as monthly batch updates, but an end-of-June first interview has nothing, another applicant counts ten unanswered emails, and the panel physician says the post does not answer her either. Relayed from Ciudad Juarez: the post has begun rescheduling immigrant visa appointments, so far for two Colombian applicants whose pause-country cases carry earlier qualification dates; some read it as the training being complete, others as too small to count. At Tegucigalpa an April interview that ended in a 221(g) for waivers had both waivers approved by the end of August; since then two CEAC touches, still Refused, no acknowledgement and an expired medical. At Sydney a mid-July 221(g) case redid its medical with a different panel physician, who needs the post to authorise a new electronic file, and neither clinic nor applicant can get a reply. At Dhaka a 17 August spouse case saw a CEAC update on 23 October and nothing else. Kathmandu parents in 221(g) since February have had no email. Manila's K-1s from 2 and 22 September are still undated and its EB-2s qualified in April and June have no letters; Ho Chi Minh City's 28 August EB-3 has had nothing. From Rio de Janeiro, relayed and unverified, employment-based re-interviews are said to be refusing about three in four, with officers reopening the whole case; we carry it as a report, not a figure. Outside the pause, an F-1 renewal in Kuwait is in its sixth week of administrative processing with the passport held after a social media check was announced at the window.

Rules this week

What changed in the official notices, and what it means for an applicant waiting on a visa. Status as of 23 October.

• November Visa Bulletin (from 1 Nov). Final action dates, the chart consular cases run on: EB-2 for most countries jumps three months to 1 April 2025; EB-3 India moves three weeks to 22 January 2014; F2A, spouses and children of permanent residents, moves a month to 22 October 2026. EB-2 India does not move (1 November 2013). If your priority date is earlier than the new cut-off, your case is current from 1 November. That is when NVC can act, not when it will, so get your documents in now.
• 75-country immigrant visa pause (blocked, partly stayed). The pause was vacated on 21 August. On 19 October an appeals court partly stayed that judgment, the part that sent individual refusals back for decision, and left the finding against the pause standing. On 23 October the government told the court that reconsideration of the refused cases continues under its 10 September instructions (see above).
• $100,000 H-1B fee (blocked). Two courts have vacated the policy that collects it. The order that created it is still on the books to September 2027. Next court step 27 October.
• Extensions judged as if new (proposed, 14 Oct). DHS proposes deleting the rule that tells USCIS to give weight to its own earlier approval when it decides an extension petition. Every extension would be argued as if new, so expect more requests for evidence. Comments are public and count: regulations.gov, before 13 November.
• Canada's H-1B fast track (not open). Announced and budgeted, but there is no form and no date. If it is not on canada.ca, it does not exist.
• Public social media profile (in force since 1 Oct). Press (I), TN and TD applicants must set their profiles to public before the interview.

What to do this week

If London emailed you a date, keep the email: the appointment page lags, and the date is the one in the email. If your new date is too soon for the medical, write to the post now. If you were first interviewed before the pause began and are stuck in administrative processing, say that plainly in your next inquiry, because the oldest-first instruction is written around pause refusals. If you are being called for a second interview, Bogota's pattern holds: a personalised insurance quote in the applicant's name, an asset summary, and answers about the applicant's own work and education, not just the petitioner's. And read the filing for what it is: processing continues, nobody has promised when it ends. The status table has each post's row, updated today, and the email list has the official address for each post.