We talk a lot in here about policies, lawsuits, countries, visas, updates and what might happen next.

But today, I want to hear about YOU. ❤️

Where were you when you realized the travel ban was going to affect you or someone you love?

Do you remember the moment you found out?

What were you doing?

Who told you — or did you find out on your own?

What was the first thing that went through your mind?

Were you in complete disbelief?

Were you angry? Scared? Confused?

Or was your reaction honestly just...

"Of course this would happen to us." 😭

Maybe you immediately started researching.

Maybe you didn't understand how serious it was at first.

Maybe you thought it would be temporary.

Maybe you already had an interview coming.

Maybe you were waiting for your spouse, parent, child, brother, sister, or another person you love to finally come home.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

One thing I've noticed in this community is that our stories aren't all the same.

There are husbands and wives here waiting for each other.

There are moms and dads worried about their children.

There are children waiting for parents.

There are brothers, sisters, cousins, and extended families affected too.

Some people are dealing with immigrant visas. Some are dealing with completely different visa categories. Some have cases much farther along than others.

But somehow, we all ended up here together. ❤️

And I think sometimes we spend so much time talking about the policy that we forget there are actual human beings behind every case number.

💬 So tell us your story.

Where were you when you found out?

Who in your family is affected?

What did you think was going to happen?

And looking back now, what do you remember most about that moment?

You don't have to share anything you're uncomfortable putting publicly. Share as much or as little as you want.

Maybe somebody reading your story today realizes...

"I'm not the only one." ❤️🌍

I just completed a **major update** to our ***“What Are the 39 Countries Actually Doing About PP 10998?”*** megathread.

There are several new developments, including updated information for **🇦🇬 Antigua and Barbuda, 🇹🇿 Tanzania, 🇧🇮 Burundi and 🇳🇬 Nigeria**, along with some cleanup and clearer distinctions between:

**✅ Confirmed PP 10998 engagement**

**🔎 Developments that may be relevant to future reviews**

**↔️ Government responses that do not appear aimed at obtaining relief**

**⚠️ Information that has not yet been independently verified**

I also added an important clarification about the **separate 75-country immigrant-visa pause** so that it isn't accidentally confused with PP 10998.

### 📌 The full tracker is staying permanently highlighted at the top of the community.

I'll continue researching and updating it as credible information becomes public. 🌍❤️

## 🌎 HELP US KEEP IT UPDATED

If you see a development from your country that isn't included, **please bring it to us** — especially information from:

* Foreign Ministries

* Embassies

* Government announcements

* Parliamentary proceedings

* Local government sources

* Credible local reporting

Information in other languages is welcome too.

***If your government is doing something, we want to know about it.*** ❤️

**Last major tracker update: October 3, 2026.**

u/kenan1234567 asked a really good question under one of my recent posts:

“If Democrats win the midterm elections, can it affect and remove PP 10998?”

I think this deserves its own post because there is a BIG difference between:

➡️ Congress changing hands

and

➡️ a Presidential Proclamation actually being removed.

So let’s break this down without turning it into a political argument or telling anybody how to vote.

This is just about HOW THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY WORKS.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📌 SHORT ANSWER:

YES — a change in Congress could affect the political and legislative environment surrounding PP 10998.

NO — Democrats winning the House, Senate, or even both chambers would NOT automatically cancel PP 10998.

There would still have to be an actual government action that changes the law, changes the proclamation, limits its implementation, or results from a court ruling.

Winning an election by itself does none of those things.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🏛️ FIRST: WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY DEALING WITH?

PP 10998 is a PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION.

It was issued by President Trump on December 16, 2025 and took effect January 1, 2026.

The proclamation relies on several authorities, but two of the major immigration statutes it cites are:

INA § 212(f)

8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)

and

INA § 215(a)

8 U.S.C. § 1185(a)

Section 212(f) gives the President authority to suspend the entry of foreign nationals, or classes of foreign nationals, when the President finds that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

That authority is extremely important here.

In Trump v. Hawaii in 2018, the Supreme Court described § 212(f) as giving the President broad discretion over entry restrictions.

That does NOT mean every future use of § 212(f), or every way an agency implements a proclamation, is automatically immune from a lawsuit.

But it does explain why simply changing who controls Congress does not make the proclamation disappear.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🗳️ SO WHAT DO THE MIDTERMS ACTUALLY CHANGE?

The 2026 midterms are congressional elections.

They do NOT replace the President.

The President remains President after the midterms.

What can change is control of:

➡️ the House of Representatives

➡️ the Senate

➡️ congressional committees

➡️ the legislative agenda

➡️ oversight of Executive Branch agencies

➡️ what immigration legislation gets introduced, heard, voted on, or investigated

The next Congress begins January 3, 2027.

So if Democrats gained control of one chamber or both chambers, that could change what Congress DOES regarding immigration policy.

But Congress and the Presidency are still separate branches.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📌 WHAT IF DEMOCRATS WON ONLY THE HOUSE?

If Democrats controlled the House, they could potentially:

• hold hearings about PP 10998 and its implementation

• conduct investigations

• request documents or testimony from Executive Branch officials

• introduce legislation addressing § 212(f)

• introduce legislation creating protections or exceptions for certain visa categories

• pass bills through the House

• use House committees to examine how State, DHS, and other agencies are implementing the proclamation

• raise questions about things like the 180-day reviews, waiver procedures, visa refusals, family separation, implementation, and country-specific findings

BUT:

Passing something through the House alone does not make it federal law.

The Senate would also have to pass legislation.

Then the President normally has to sign it.

So controlling the House alone would increase congressional power to investigate, debate, and legislate on the issue — but the House could not simply vote one afternoon and erase PP 10998 by itself.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📌 WHAT IF DEMOCRATS WON ONLY THE SENATE?

Similar idea.

Senate control could affect:

• which immigration bills receive hearings

• which bills reach the Senate floor

• committee investigations

• oversight hearings

• requests for information from State/DHS

• confirmation proceedings for certain executive officials when vacancies arise

But the Senate alone also cannot simply repeal a presidential proclamation.

For ordinary legislation, the House would still have to pass the legislation too.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📌 WHAT IF DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE?

THIS is where the question gets more interesting.

Congress has very broad authority over immigration.

Remember something important:

Section 212(f) exists because CONGRESS enacted it.

Congress wrote the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Congress therefore has the power to consider legislation changing the statutory rules governing immigration and the President’s delegated authority.

For example, Congress could consider legislation that:

• amends § 212(f)

• narrows when § 212(f) can be used

• creates additional procedural requirements

• requires additional reporting to Congress

• creates statutory exceptions

• protects certain family-based visa categories

• changes how nationality-based restrictions may operate

• places additional limits or conditions on future proclamations

That does NOT mean Congress WOULD enact any of those things.

I’m explaining what Congress CAN legislate about.

And we actually have historical evidence that Congress can seriously consider this type of change.

In 2021, the House passed the NO BAN Act, H.R. 1333.

That bill proposed limits and additional requirements on presidential authority under § 212(f).

It passed the House but did not ultimately become law.

That is actually a useful example for understanding the difference between:

“Congress can address this”

and

“Congress has successfully changed the law.”

Those are two very different things.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🚨 AND HERE IS THE REALLY IMPORTANT PART:

Even if the SAME legislation passed BOTH the House and Senate, it normally still goes to the President.

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution says legislation passed by both chambers is presented to the President.

The President may sign it.

Or the President may veto it.

Congress can override a presidential veto — but that requires TWO-THIRDS of BOTH the House and the Senate.

So when somebody says:

*“*If Democrats win Congress, they can just remove the ban.”

That skips a VERY important part of the process.

Congress can legislate.

But Congress cannot simply pretend the President no longer exists.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

💰 WHAT ABOUT CONGRESS CONTROLLING THE MONEY?

Congress also controls federal appropriations.

And interestingly, PP 10998 itself says that the proclamation is to be implemented:

“subject to the availability of appropriations.”

That matters because Congress can place conditions and restrictions into spending legislation.

Depending on exactly how legislation is written, Congress could potentially restrict how federal money may be used for particular policies or implementation activities.

BUT AGAIN:

An appropriations restriction is not automatically the same thing as deleting PP 10998 from existence.

Funding legislation also has to become law through the normal legislative process.

So this is another place where Congress can potentially affect IMPLEMENTATION without Congress simply snapping its fingers and making a presidential proclamation vanish.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🔎 WHAT ABOUT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT?

This is another area people underestimate.

Congress has investigative and oversight authority connected to its legislative responsibilities.

That means committees can hold hearings, seek testimony, request documents, investigate agency practices, and publicly question officials.

For our community, that could potentially mean congressional attention to things like:

• how PP 10998 is being implemented

• visa refusal practices

• national-interest exceptions

• the 180-day reviews

• why particular countries remain restricted

• what countries have done to address U.S. concerns

• whether State Department practices go beyond what the proclamation itself authorizes

• family separation

• immigrant visa processing

• transparency surrounding country reviews

Oversight does NOT itself repeal PP 10998.

But oversight can produce information, create a public record, influence legislation, and put political pressure on agencies or the Executive Branch.

That is why congressional control still matters even though Congress cannot directly revoke the proclamation by itself.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

👀 WHAT ABOUT THE 180-DAY REVIEW?

This connects directly to the post we made recently.

Section 7(a) of PP 10998 requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, DHS Secretary, and Director of National Intelligence, to report to the President every 180 days.

The report is supposed to recommend whether restrictions should be:

• continued

• terminated

• modified

• supplemented

That process happens inside the Executive Branch.

Congress does not have to “win” an election for a country to receive relief through that review process.

The President can modify restrictions through the proclamation process independently of the midterms.

We have already seen proof that country restrictions are not necessarily frozen forever.

Turkmenistan is an example.

PP 10998 says Turkmenistan made significant progress in identity management and information sharing.

Because of that progress, its B-1/B-2 and F/M/J nonimmigrant restrictions were lifted, while its immigrant restriction remained.

So there is already a mechanism inside the proclamation for restrictions to CHANGE without Congress repealing § 212(f).

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

👨‍⚖️ WHAT ABOUT THE COURTS?

That is a completely separate lane.

Congressional elections do not decide federal lawsuits.

Courts decide legal challenges brought before them.

And this is why I keep separating all of these things in this subreddit:

🏛️ CONGRESS

can legislate, appropriate money, and conduct oversight.

🏢 THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

can administer, modify, terminate, or supplement restrictions within its legal authority.

⚖️ THE COURTS

can decide legal challenges to presidential or agency action.

🌍 FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

can work with the United States on the screening, vetting, identity-management, overstay, repatriation, or information-sharing concerns cited in the proclamation.

All of those things can affect the future of these restrictions.

But they are NOT the same process.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📌 COULD A PRESIDENT JUST REMOVE A TRAVEL PROCLAMATION?

Historically, yes, presidents have revoked previous presidents’ entry proclamations.

One very clear example happened January 20, 2021.

President Biden issued Proclamation 10141 and revoked President Trump’s earlier Proclamations 9645 and 9983.

That is a good historical example of why PRESIDENTIAL elections and MIDTERM elections are fundamentally different for this question.

A new President controls the Executive Branch and may revoke or replace a predecessor’s presidential proclamation, subject to applicable law.

A midterm election does not change who the President is.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📌 SO LET'S ANSWER u/kenan1234567 DIRECTLY:

“If Democrats win the midterms, can it affect and remove PP 10998?”

A change in congressional control COULD affect PP 10998 indirectly and potentially significantly through:

✅ legislation

✅ oversight

✅ hearings

✅ investigations

✅ appropriations

✅ statutory changes

✅ increased transparency requirements

✅ immigration-law amendments

But:

❌ winning the midterms does not automatically remove PP 10998

❌ winning one chamber does not revoke PP 10998

❌ winning both chambers does not automatically revoke PP 10998

❌ Congress cannot simply issue its own presidential proclamation canceling it

For Congress to directly change the legal framework, actual legislation would need to make it through the constitutional lawmaking process.

Meanwhile, PP 10998 can ALSO change through its own Executive Branch review process, diplomatic progress by individual countries, presidential action, or litigation resulting in court orders.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

❤️ WHY I THINK THIS QUESTION MATTERS

I think this is exactly where a lot of confusion happens.

People hear:

“Midterms.”

“Congress.”

“Supreme Court.”

“180-day review.”

“Lawsuit.”

“Proclamation.”

And it all starts sounding like one giant government process.

It isn’t.

There are several different doors that could potentially lead to policy changes, and they are controlled by different parts of government.

That is why I want us to understand which door we are actually watching when we hear an update.

Something happening in Congress is not automatically a court victory.

Something happening in court is not automatically Congress changing the law.

A country improving its vetting cooperation is not the same thing as Congress repealing § 212(f).

And an election result is not itself the same thing as PP 10998 being revoked.

Knowing those differences helps us understand what actually happened instead of getting our hopes crushed every time somebody posts:

“THE BAN IS OVER!!!”

when what actually happened was something completely different.

Thank you u/kenan1234567 for asking this because I think a LOT of families were probably wondering the same thing. ❤️

And just to be clear: this post is not telling anyone how to vote or supporting a political party. It is explaining how the different branches of government could affect PP 10998.

⚠️ I am not an immigration attorney. I research the proclamations, statutes, court cases, government documents, and public updates so we can better understand what is happening to our families. For advice about your individual immigration case, speak with a qualified immigration attorney.

​

I want to talk about the government’s attempt to pause the 75-country court victory — but specifically from OUR perspective.

Not because the 75-country pause and PP 10998 are the same thing.

They are not.

The question I’m interested in is:

Could what happens in the 75-country appeal strengthen — or weaken — the legal arguments being made against the 39-country visa restrictions?

And the answer is:

YES, potentially.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🔎 THE IMPORTANT PART OF THE 75-COUNTRY RULING

In CLINIC v. Rubio, the judge did more than simply say:

“I don’t like this policy.”

The court found that the State Department did not have the legal authority to categorically order immigrant visas refused to people from certain countries simply because of their nationality.

The court pointed to immigration law that generally prohibits nationality discrimination in immigrant visa issuance and requires visa refusals to be based on an actual legal ground of ineligibility.

That is why the 75-country policy was struck down.

And THAT is where things become very interesting for us.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🌍 PP 10998 IS DIFFERENT — BUT LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE

PP 10998 was issued by the President using INA §212(f).

That law gives the President very broad authority to restrict:

ENTRY into the United States.

And the actual proclamation repeatedly talks about suspending or limiting ENTRY.

But after PP 10998 was issued, the State Department announced that it was also suspending VISA ISSUANCE to people from the affected countries.

Those are related things.

But legally, they are not necessarily the exact same thing.

A visa allows someone to travel to the United States and request admission.

CBP ultimately determines whether that person may actually ENTER.

That distinction is now becoming one of the most important legal arguments in the 39-country litigation.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

⚖️ AND WE JUST GOT A VERY IMPORTANT 39-COUNTRY RULING ON SEPTEMBER 11

In Ahmed v. U.S. Department of State, families affected by PP 10998 challenged the State Department’s policy of refusing visas based on the proclamation.

The government basically argued:

The President has broad power under §212(f), so this should be dismissed.

But the judge said something VERY important.

The families were not necessarily challenging the President’s power to restrict ENTRY.

They were challenging what the STATE DEPARTMENT did afterward with VISA ISSUANCE.

The court said those can be treated as two separate government actions.

The judge specifically allowed the challenges to the State Department’s visa-issuance policy to continue.

In other words:

The court did NOT say PP 10998 is invalid.

But it also did NOT accept the argument that the President’s power to suspend entry automatically ends the conversation about whether DOS can refuse visas.

That is a very important distinction for us.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

👀 NOW GO BACK TO THE 75-COUNTRY CASE

This is why I am watching the government’s appeal and request for a stay so closely.

CLINIC already produced a ruling saying the State Department exceeded its authority when it imposed a blanket nationality-based immigrant visa issuance suspension.

Now the government is fighting that ruling on appeal.

If that ruling survives the appeal — especially if a federal appeals court agrees with the reasoning — lawyers challenging PP 10998 implementation would have another very strong decision to point to.

They could essentially argue:

“A president may have broad authority to restrict ENTRY under §212(f), but that does not automatically give the Secretary of State unlimited authority to rewrite the rules for VISA ISSUANCE.”

And we now have a judge in a PP 10998 case already taking that distinction seriously.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

❤️ WHAT COULD THAT ACTUALLY MEAN FOR OUR FAMILIES?

This is where I want to be careful.

Even if courts eventually decide that DOS cannot automatically refuse immigrant visas under PP 10998, that would NOT necessarily mean everyone could immediately enter the United States.

The underlying ENTRY restriction could still remain.

So theoretically, we could end up in a situation where:

✅ A consular officer processes the immigrant visa normally.

✅ The applicant is otherwise legally eligible for the visa.

✅ DOS cannot refuse the visa solely because of a blanket nationality policy.

BUT:

⛔ The person could still be subject to PP 10998’s ENTRY restriction until that restriction is lifted, modified, or an exception applies.

That would be frustrating.

But legally it would still be a HUGE difference.

Because right now DOS is essentially collapsing those two steps into one:

“You cannot enter, therefore we will not issue the visa.”

The lawsuits are asking courts whether the law actually allows DOS to do that.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

⚠️ AND WHAT IF THE GOVERNMENT WINS THE 75-COUNTRY APPEAL?

That could make things harder.

The government would almost certainly use a favorable appellate ruling to support its arguments in other visa-policy cases.

But even then:

It would NOT automatically mean PP 10998 has been upheld.

The 75-country policy came directly from the State Department.

PP 10998 comes from a presidential proclamation under §212(f).

Those cases have different facts and different legal authorities.

And courts in other parts of the country would not automatically be bound by every decision coming out of the Second Circuit.

So again:

Related.

Important.

But not identical.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📌 AND A STAY ITSELF DOES NOT DECIDE THIS QUESTION

Whether the government temporarily gets a stay is worth watching, but the much bigger question for our community is what the appeals court eventually says about the State Department’s authority.

A stay could slow the 75-country relief.

It could also give us some indication of how seriously the appellate court is taking the government’s arguments.

But the FINAL appellate decision is what could have a much bigger ripple effect.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

⚖️ THIS IS WHY I KEEP WATCHING CASES THAT AREN’T “OUR” CASE

Sometimes people ask why we care what happens with:

the 75-country pause,

USCIS cases,

DV cases,

asylum families,

or other immigration lawsuits.

THIS is why.

Courts build on other courts’ reasoning.

Lawyers cite decisions from other cases.

One judge develops an argument.

Another judge adopts it.

An appeals court strengthens it.

And suddenly something that looked like a small legal argument six months earlier becomes a major part of another case.

That is how litigation develops.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

❤️ WHERE THIS LEAVES US

No, the 75-country victory does not lift PP 10998.

No, winning its appeal would not automatically reunite our 39-country families.

But the legal question underneath it matters tremendously:

HOW MUCH POWER DOES THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAVE TO STOP IMMIGRANT VISA ISSUANCE BASED ON NATIONALITY?

And now we have:

⚖️ CLINIC v. Rubio — a court has already ruled against DOS on that question in the 75-country context.

⚖️ Ahmed v. Department of State — on September 11, a judge allowed a very similar challenge involving PP 10998 to continue.

⚖️ Chikumba v. Department of State — another direct challenge to DOS’s implementation of the 39-country restrictions is still pending.

So this is what I am watching:

Not whether the 75-country ruling magically removes our ban.

It won’t.

I’m watching whether the courts continue building a legal wall between:

PRESIDENTIAL POWER TO RESTRICT ENTRY

and

STATE DEPARTMENT POWER TO REFUSE VISAS.

Because if courts ultimately decide those are NOT interchangeable powers?

That could matter enormously for the 39-country families.

We keep watching. 👀❤️

​

This is a little different from my normal posts here.

This is not a major PP 10998 update or a new development in one of our cases. This is really just side talk because election season is becoming increasingly relevant, and I know a lot of us are paying attention to the midterms.

Someone mentioned Trump's new $5,000 proposal in the comments, and it made me curious enough to actually go look into exactly what was announced.

So I figured I would share what I found.

What did Trump actually announce?

On September 9, at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, President Trump said that if Republicans retain control of both the House and Senate, adult U.S. citizens would receive a $5,000 “Trump Dividend.”

So yes — the $5,000 announcement is real.

But there is an important distinction in how it was presented.

He did not say:

«“If you personally vote Republican, you personally get $5,000.”»

The proposal is that if Republicans win control of Congress, eligible adults would receive the payment regardless of how any particular person voted.

That distinction matters when we start using words like bribery or vote buying in the legal sense.

But I also completely understand why people are calling it bribery 😭

I don't want to make this one of those posts where I'm basically saying, “Actually, everyone is wrong and I'm right.”

Because when I first heard someone describe this as basically trying to bribe voters, I understood exactly what they meant.

Even though it isn't:

“Vote Republican and I personally hand YOU $5,000,”

the message is still essentially:

If Republicans win, Americans get $5,000.

If Republicans don't win, that $5,000 doesn't happen.

And I can absolutely understand why that feels like a financial incentive attached directly to an election outcome.

The easiest comparison I can think of is this:

If I told a house full of kids:

“If this house is clean when I come back, everybody gets pizza. If it isn't clean, nobody gets pizza.”

I'm not technically paying one individual child to clean.

Every child gets the reward if the outcome I want happens.

But obviously the pizza is being offered as an incentive to produce that outcome. 😂

That's basically why I understand the reaction people are having to this announcement.

Legally, though, there is a distinction.

The Associated Press looked specifically at the election-bribery question.

Because the proposed $5,000 would not depend on how an individual person votes — or even whether that individual votes at all — a legal expert quoted by AP distinguished this from directly paying someone in exchange for their vote.

So I personally would be careful about stating as a fact that this is illegal vote buying.

That is a much more specific legal allegation.

But saying:

“This feels like trying to financially incentivize voters to produce a particular election result”

is a completely understandable reaction to what was announced.

Those two ideas don't necessarily contradict each other.

And right now, the $5,000 isn't even an approved payment.

This is a proposal/political promise.

It is not currently an enacted $5,000 federal benefit.

There are still enormous unanswered questions about how it would actually work.

Reuters estimates that giving $5,000 to every U.S. adult would cost approximately $1.35 trillion.

Reporting also indicates that congressional approval could be necessary.

Vice President JD Vance has already suggested that wealthier Americans might possibly be excluded, meaning even the exact group that would qualify is not completely settled.

There are also questions about whether tariff revenue could actually fund something this expensive.

So:

$5,000 has been promised.

A $5,000 check has not been passed into law.

Those are two very different things.

Why am I even posting this here?

Mostly because we're entering an election season that a lot of people in this community are watching very closely.

Not because anyone thinks this $5,000 proposal itself changes PP 10998.

Obviously it doesn't.

That's not really the interesting part.

The interesting part is that many families affected by these restrictions are already watching the midterms because control of Congress can affect the broader immigration-policy environment — legislation, oversight, hearings, funding, and attempts to limit or expand executive authority.

So when something potentially significant happens in the midterm political environment, I think it's fair for us to occasionally talk about it.

That doesn't mean every political story needs to become a post here.

But this one caught my attention because a member brought it up, I went down the research rabbit hole, and I realized there was more nuance to it than the first headline makes it seem.

And honestly, sometimes we can have a little side talk too. 😂

Not every discussion here has to be:

🚨 NEW COURT FILING

or

🚨 COUNTRY STATUS CHANGE

We're also a community of people whose families are being directly affected by government policy, so naturally we're going to be paying attention to what is happening politically around us.

I'm not posting this to tell anyone how they should vote or what political conclusion they should reach.

I just wanted to put the actual announcement on the table so we can talk about it based on what was really said.

Where I land on it

The most accurate way I can describe it is:

It is not the same thing as directly offering an individual $5,000 in exchange for their vote.

But...

telling the country that a $5,000 payment happens if your political party wins Congress is obviously going to be perceived by some people as a very direct financial incentive connected to the election.

And I don't think people are unreasonable for having that reaction.

Now whether this promise actually changes anybody's vote — or changes the outcome of the midterms at all — is a completely different question.

And I think THAT may actually be the more interesting conversation.

---

Sources checked:

• Reuters — September 9–10 reporting on Trump's $5,000 “Trump Dividend” announcement at the Republican midterm convention

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-tie-midterm-hopes-trump-dallas-convention-despite-political-risks-2026-09-09/

• Associated Press — September 10 reporting examining the proposal, estimated cost, congressional questions, and the distinction between the announcement and direct vote buying

Update, Sept. 10: Trump defended the proposal in a Fox News interview today after being asked why the payments could not simply be issued now. He again tied the dividend to Republicans retaining Congress, while the White House said the payment “depends on President Trump and Republicans.”

​

🌟

IMPORTANT:

These are research notes, not an announcement that PP 10998 has changed. I have not found an official announcement removing or modifying any of the 39 countries as of September 10.

----------------------------------------

IMMPACT — SEPTEMBER 9 LIVESTREAM

During IMMPact Immigration's September 9 litigation livestream, the attorneys discussed their 39-country cases.

My notes from the livestream indicate that IMMPact said they have calls on Fridays concerning the individual countries/country groups.

They described these as discussions about:

- Where each country/case currently stands

- Where things are going

- What they are anticipating

- Pending motions and developments

This was NOT described as a court hearing, judge's deadline, government announcement, or public release scheduled for Friday.

It appears to refer to IMMPact's own case/client discussions.

The next Friday is September 11, 2026.

I have NOT independently found a public IMMPact announcement confirming what will be discussed on September 11, so this detail currently comes from my notes taken during the September 9 livestream.

Other notes I recorded from the livestream that still need exact-video verification:

- The attorneys discussed the government's recent motion to dismiss.

- My notes indicate that they did not sound alarmed by the motion and cautioned people not to overreact to it.

- They indicated a response would be filed.

- They discussed the distinction between challenging the proclamation itself and challenging how the government is implementing immigration/visa processing under the law.

- They discussed 221(g) and indicated that a 221(g) refusal is not necessarily the final end of a visa case.

- They discussed long processing/adjudication waits and concerns that cases do not always appear to be moving strictly first-in, first-out.

- They discussed the possibility of processing in another country but cautioned about the broader disruption currently affecting immigrant-visa processing.

- They discussed visa validity after issuance and warned applicants to check the expiration date on an issued visa.

- They discussed the possibility that a court could dismiss litigation; litigation outcomes are never guaranteed.

- They discussed enforcement of a court order and the possibility of contempt if the government were ordered to do something and failed to comply.

IMPORTANT:

These are notes taken while listening live. Exact wording and context should be checked against the replay/transcript before any statement is quoted as coming directly from the attorneys.

----------------------------------------

CHIKUMBA v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

The government responded to the Chikumba lawsuit on September 4.

The publicly visible docket reflects a dismissal filing/motion and a notice of appearance.

The underlying motion is important because it contains the government's actual legal arguments for why it believes the case should not proceed.

The plaintiffs' response to that motion is one of the next major developments worth watching.

A motion to dismiss is NOT the same thing as the judge dismissing the lawsuit.

The case remains pending unless and until the court actually rules otherwise.

----------------------------------------

WHAT IMMPACT IS CHALLENGING

IMMPact publicly describes its 39-country litigation as challenging the government's implementation of immigration/adjudication restrictions.

There are multiple litigation tracks involving people from the 39 countries, and they should not all be treated as one lawsuit.

This is important when discussing:

- Chikumba v. Department of State

- IMMPact's 39-country litigation

- USCIS litigation

- The separate 75-country immigrant-visa litigation

They involve overlapping groups of people but are not interchangeable.

----------------------------------------

TANZANIA

August 3, 2026:

Tanzanian officials met with an 11-member U.S. congressional delegation.

Tanzania raised U.S. visa restrictions affecting Tanzanian nationals.

Reporting based on Tanzania's Foreign Ministry statements indicated that the parties agreed to revisit Tanzania's requests concerning the restrictions and continue discussions.

The meeting also involved security, defense, trade and regional cooperation.

STATUS:

🟢 Diplomatic engagement confirmed

🟢 Visa restrictions were specifically discussed

🟢 Follow-up/reconsideration was discussed

🟡 Outcome remains unknown

🔴 No change to Tanzania's PP 10998 restrictions has been announced

This is useful for the country tracker but is older than one month, so it may not warrant a new standalone post unless a new development occurs.

----------------------------------------

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

August 2, 2026:

Prime Minister Gaston Browne wrote to President Trump requesting review of Antigua and Barbuda's inclusion under PP 10998 and related U.S. visa restrictions.

Antigua and Barbuda's embassy in Washington also sent a diplomatic note to Secretary of State Marco Rubio seeking review.

August 4:

The government publicly discussed cooperation involving areas including:

- Information sharing

- Identity verification

- Screening and vetting

- Document security

- Immigration compliance

These overlap substantially with concerns identified in the proclamation.

August 13:

The United States reportedly formally acknowledged receiving Antigua and Barbuda's appeal.

Antiguan representatives said communication with the White House and State Department was continuing.

STATUS:

🟢 Direct request for PP 10998 review

🟢 Diplomatic engagement confirmed

🟢 Relevant security/identity/immigration issues being addressed

🟡 U.S. acknowledged the appeal

🟡 Review outcome unknown

🔴 No restriction change announced

----------------------------------------

NIGERIA

No new September 10 breakthrough located.

Previously documented developments remain important:

- U.S.-Nigeria diplomatic engagement continues.

- Security and counterterrorism cooperation continues.

- Nigeria and the United States held their second Joint Working Group meeting August 12-13.

- Nigeria has continued work involving identity/civil-record modernization.

- Several areas of U.S.-Nigeria cooperation overlap with concerns identified in PP 10998.

However:

The August Joint Working Group was formally connected to Nigeria's Country of Particular Concern issues. It should NOT automatically be described as a PP 10998 negotiation without evidence establishing that connection.

STATUS:

🟢 Active U.S.-Nigeria engagement

🟢 Security/counterterrorism cooperation

🟢 Relevant reforms/developments occurring

🟡 Subject matter overlaps with PP 10998 concerns

🟡 Direct PP 10998 negotiations have not been publicly confirmed

🔴 Nigeria's visa restrictions have not been changed

----------------------------------------

WORLDWIDE IMMIGRANT-VISA PROCESSING ISSUE

This needs to remain separate from PP 10998.

There has been a broader disruption in immigrant-visa processing connected with implementation/training surrounding the government's new public-charge assessment procedures.

Hungary and Poland have resumed immigrant-visa processing.

Therefore statements that "no immigrant visas are being issued anywhere in the world" should NOT be repeated literally as a current factual statement.

Also:

The separate 75-country immigrant-visa issuance pause ended August 21, 2026 pursuant to the CLINIC litigation/order.

That did NOT terminate PP 10998.

Keep these separate:

1. PP 10998 / 39-country restrictions

2. 75-country immigrant-visa pause

3. Current broader consular/public-charge processing disruption

4. USCIS 39-country adjudication policies/litigation

5. Individual lawsuits such as Chikumba

6. IMMPact's other litigation

----------------------------------------

WHAT WE ARE WATCHING NEXT

1. Chikumba plaintiffs' response to the government's September 4 motion to dismiss.

2. Any subsequent Chikumba order or docket activity.

3. IMMPact's September 11 Friday discussions concerning its 39-country cases.

IMPORTANT: This is based on the September 9 livestream discussion. It is not being characterized as a court event or public government announcement.

4. Any information IMMPact subsequently makes public following those discussions.

5. Follow-up from Antigua and Barbuda after the U.S. acknowledged its request for review.

6. Follow-up U.S.-Tanzania discussions regarding Tanzania's visa restrictions.

7. Additional Nigeria-U.S. engagement that can be directly connected to PP 10998.

8. Any official modification, termination or supplementation of an individual country's PP 10998 restrictions.

9. Restoration of normal immigrant-visa processing at additional U.S. consular posts.

10. Any new U.S. data, reports or government statements relevant to the factors used in PP 10998.

A new development was reported this week involving U.S. immigrant visa processing in Hungary and Poland.

According to Reuters, the U.S. has resumed processing immigrant visa applications at its missions in Hungary and Poland after immigrant visa appointments had been temporarily disrupted more broadly while the State Department implements new public-charge screening procedures and trains consular staff.

I want to be VERY clear about something before getting into this:

⚠️ THIS IS NOT A CHANGE TO PP 10998.

Hungary and Poland are not among the 39 countries restricted under Presidential Proclamation 10998, and this development does not remove or modify the PP 10998 restrictions affecting our countries.

So why am I sharing it here?

Because many of us have been following several different immigration policies at the same time, and they are very easy to mix together.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🔹 WHAT HAPPENED?

Reuters reported on September 8 that immigrant visa processing resumed for Hungary and Poland last week.

According to the report, the directive to prioritize immigrant visa processing at U.S. missions in Hungary and Poland came from the White House.

The State Department did not provide Reuters with a specific explanation for why those two countries were selected.

Meanwhile, immigrant visa appointments at other U.S. missions have been affected while the State Department implements updated public-charge procedures and consular officers complete new training.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🔹 HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE FORMER 75-COUNTRY PAUSE?

Earlier this year, the State Department paused immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries based on public-charge concerns.

That policy was challenged in CLINIC v. Rubio.

On August 21, 2026, the court ruled against that policy, and the State Department now officially states that the January 2026 75-country immigrant visa issuance pause is no longer in effect.

However, a separate disruption followed while the State Department implemented new public-charge guidance and training for consular officers.

That is the situation being discussed in the new reporting about Hungary and Poland.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🔹 WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE 39 PP 10998 COUNTRIES?

Right now, it does NOT change PP 10998.

The restrictions under PP 10998 remain a separate policy.

For those of us from the 39 affected countries, this is important to understand because there are several different immigration policies and court cases happening at the same time.

A headline saying that immigrant visa processing has "resumed" somewhere does NOT automatically mean the PP 10998 restrictions have been lifted or changed.

Hungary and Poland are not examples of countries being removed from PP 10998.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🔹 WHY I'M STILL WATCHING THIS

Even though this does not change PP 10998, I think it is worth documenting developments in the broader immigration-policy environment when they could cause confusion for affected families.

Right now we are watching several different things at once:

• PP 10998 and its 39-country restrictions

• Chikumba v. Department of State

• The aftermath of CLINIC v. Rubio and the former 75-country immigrant visa pause

• USCIS adjudication-hold litigation

• Country-by-country diplomatic engagement and reforms

• Changes in consular processing and visa procedures

These are separate issues, even though sometimes they affect the same families.

I will continue trying to keep them separated here so that when something changes, we can understand exactly WHAT changed — and what did not.

❤️🌍

SOURCES

Reuters — U.S. resumes immigrant visa processing for Hungary, Poland as pause remains elsewhere

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-resumes-immigrant-visa-processing-hungary-poland-pause-remains-elsewhere-2026-09-08/

U.S. Department of State — Immigrant Visa Processing Updates for Nationalities at High Risk of U.S. Public Benefits Reliance

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/immigrant-visa-processing-updates-for-nationalities-at-high-risk-of-public-benefits-usage.html

There are a couple of developments affecting immigrant-visa processing that are worth knowing about, particularly for applicants whose cases will eventually be handled by the U.S. Consulate General in Lagos.

First, an important clarification: this does not mean Nigeria has been removed from Presidential Proclamation 10998, and it does not mean the IR-1/CR-1 immediate-relative exception has been restored.

Nigeria remains subject to the separate 39-country restrictions under PP 10998.

However, there are developments involving immigrant-visa interview operations themselves, so I wanted to put everything in one place.

📌 1. Immigrant-visa interviews have faced a separate temporary disruption

Following the federal court decision that ended the former 75-country immigrant-visa issuance pause, the State Department began implementing new public-charge guidance and training for consular officers.

According to Reuters reporting published September 8, immigrant-visa appointments at U.S. diplomatic missions have been temporarily disrupted while officers complete this training and certification process.

This issue is important to distinguish from the former 75-country pause.

The former 75-country immigrant-visa pause has ended.

What is happening now involves implementation, officer training, certification and interview operations. It is therefore possible for applicants to experience scheduling disruptions even though the former 75-country policy itself is no longer in effect.

Some posts have already been instructed to resume immigrant-visa processing, including posts in Hungary and Poland.

The situation may not be identical at every embassy or consulate, so applicants should continue following instructions from their individual processing post.

🇳🇬 2. What does this mean for Nigeria?

For Nigerian immigrant-visa applicants, there are currently two separate issues that should not be confused.

Issue #1 — Presidential Proclamation 10998

Nigeria remains one of the countries subject to partial visa restrictions under PP 10998.

For Nigerian nationals, the proclamation currently suspends issuance of:

• All immigrant visas

and certain nonimmigrant visa categories.

Importantly, the broad exception that previously existed for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens — including many IR-1/CR-1 spouses — was removed under PP 10998.

Applicants may still be able to submit applications and attend interviews, but visa issuance can remain prohibited unless the applicant qualifies for an applicable exception or receives an individual national-interest exception.

Nothing announced this week has changed that.

Issue #2 — Immigrant-visa interview operations

Separate from PP 10998, State Department posts have been dealing with the new consular training and implementation requirements described above.

This matters because even someone who is waiting normally in the immigrant-visa process can potentially be affected by operational delays.

In other words:

PP 10998 = legal restriction on visa issuance for affected nationalities.

Current training/appointment issue = operational issue affecting immigrant-visa processing.

They are two different things.

🏢 3. Lagos is now especially important for Nigerian visa processing

The U.S. Mission in Nigeria has also consolidated routine visa processing at the U.S. Consulate General in Lagos.

Routine visa processing at Abuja was discontinued effective August 1, with Lagos serving as the principal location for routine visa services.

For people already processing immigrant visas through Lagos, this does not necessarily mean your case is being transferred somewhere new.

Lagos was already the immigrant-visa processing post for many Nigerian cases.

What I think is worth watching now is capacity.

If more visa operations are being concentrated in Lagos, there are two possibilities:

• Additional workload could place more pressure on appointment availability.

OR

• Lagos's designation as a processing hub could come with staffing/resources intended to support the increased workload.

At this point, I have not seen enough evidence to say which effect will dominate, so I don't want to speculate.

What matters is watching what actually happens to Lagos immigrant-visa scheduling over the coming months.

⏳ 4. What does this mean if you're already DQ and waiting for Lagos?

If you're Documentarily Qualified (DQ) and waiting for an immigrant-visa interview in Lagos, none of these developments erase your DQ date or mean you need to restart your case.

You remain in the immigrant-visa process.

The important things to watch now are:

• Lagos immigrant-visa appointment scheduling

• Whether Lagos has completed the new consular training/certification requirements

• Changes in interview capacity or backlog

• New Department of State or U.S. Mission Nigeria guidance

• Any changes to PP 10998

• Nigeria's status during future country reviews

• Any restoration of an immediate-relative/IR-1/CR-1 exception

• Relevant litigation affecting implementation of the restrictions

⚠️ Most important: Nigeria's 39-country restriction has NOT been lifted

I want to make this especially clear so this post isn't misunderstood or reposted elsewhere as something it isn't.

As of September 9, 2026:

❌ Nigeria has not been removed from PP 10998.

❌ The Nigerian immigrant-visa suspension has not been lifted.

❌ The automatic IR-1/CR-1 immediate-relative exception has not been restored.

❌ The recent immigrant-visa developments do not override PP 10998.

At the same time:

✅ Immigrant-visa processing infrastructure continues to operate.

✅ Lagos remains an important visa-processing hub.

✅ Applicants can continue progressing through the immigration process where permitted.

✅ The legal, diplomatic and policy situation continues to develop.

🔎 What this community should watch next

The most useful Nigeria-specific information now would be confirmation regarding Lagos's immigrant-visa scheduling after the new training requirements, along with any changes in interview capacity.

Separately, we should continue watching the much larger issue: whether Nigeria's status under PP 10998 changes.

That includes U.S.–Nigeria diplomatic engagement, information-sharing/security cooperation, future country reviews, litigation, Department of State guidance, new exceptions, and any amendment or replacement of the proclamation.

If anyone receives a new Lagos immigrant-visa interview letter, has an interview rescheduled, receives new instructions from NVC/Lagos, or sees official guidance that changes any of the information above, please share it with the community.

Please include a source or screenshot with personal information removed whenever possible.

The goal is to document developments as they happen — including the steps between “nothing has changed” and an eventual final policy decision.

📚 SOURCES

U.S. Department of State — Presidential Proclamation 10998 / Suspension of Visa Issuance to Nationals of 39 Countries

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-of-visa-issuance-to-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states.html

Reuters — September 8, 2026: U.S. Resumes Immigrant Visa Processing in Hungary and Poland While Pause Remains Elsewhere

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-resumes-immigrant-visa-processing-hungary-poland-pause-remains-elsewhere-2026-09-08/

IMPORTANT: This is not a list of secret or official “pass/fail benchmarks.” The U.S. has not publicly released a complete checklist for each country.

Instead, this post takes the specific problems the U.S. government publicly identified for each country and puts them into plain language. These are the areas we would expect to matter when the restrictions are reviewed.

PP 10998 says the U.S. considers a country's screening and vetting capabilities, identity management, information sharing, terrorist presence and other security risks, visa-overstay rates, and cooperation in accepting removable nationals. The proclamation also says some additional information used in these decisions is classified.

So think of this as:

“What problems has the U.S. publicly said need improvement?”

—not—

“Complete these items and the ban automatically ends.”

🔴 Countries Under Full Restrictions

🇦🇫 Afghanistan

U.S. concerns:

-Reliable central authority for passports/civil documents

-Screening and vetting systems

-Taliban control/security concerns

-High student/exchange-visitor overstay rate

What would need to improve:

reliable identity/document systems, screening and vetting, security conditions and overstay compliance.

🇲🇲 Burma (Myanmar)

U.S. concerns:

-Very high visa-overstay rates

-Historical lack of cooperation accepting removable nationals

What would need to improve:

Lower overstays and stronger repatriation cooperation with the U.S.

The broader proclamation also evaluates identity management and information sharing.

🇹🇩 Chad

U.S. concern:

-extremely high visa-overstay rates

.

What would need to improve: substantially better compliance with U.S. visa terms/lower overstay rates.

🇨🇬 Republic of the Congo

U.S. concern:

-Very high B1/B2 and student/exchange overstay rates.

What would need to improve: lower visa-overstay rates.

🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea

U.S. concern:

-very high visa-overstay rates, particularly among students/exchange visitors.

What would need to improve: substantially lower overstay rates.

🇪🇷 Eritrea

U.S. concerns:

-Reliability of passport/civil-document authority

-Criminal-record information unavailable to U.S.

-Historical refusal to accept removable nationals

-High overstay rates

What would need to improve:

document/identity reliability, criminal-information sharing, repatriation cooperation and visa compliance.

🇭🇹 Haiti

U.S. concerns:

-High overstay rates

-Insufficient central-government/law-enforcement information

-Security concerns

What would need to improve:

government information-sharing and vetting capability, security conditions and overstay compliance.

🇮🇷 Iran

U.S. concerns**:**

-State sponsor of terrorism designation

-Insufficient cooperation identifying security risks

-Terrorism concerns

-Historical failure to accept removable nationals

What would need to improve:

security/information-sharing cooperation and repatriation cooperation, alongside the much broader terrorism/national-security issues cited by the U.S.

🇱🇾 Libya

U.S. concerns:

-Lack of a reliable/cooperative central authority for passports and civil documents

-Terrorist presence/security risks

What would need to improve:

reliable identity/document systems, government vetting capacity and security conditions.

🇸🇴 Somalia

U.S. concerns:

-Passport/civil-document reliability

-Screening and vetting

-Limited government control of territory

-Terrorist safe-haven/security concerns

-Historical refusal to accept removable nationals

What would need to improve:

identity/document systems, vetting, territorial/security capacity and repatriation cooperation.

🇸🇩 Sudan

U.S. concerns:

-Lack of reliable/cooperative passport and civil-document authority

-Inadequate screening/vetting

-High overstay rates

What would need to improve:

identity/document systems, screening and vetting, and visa compliance.

🇾🇪 Yemen

U.S. concerns:

-Passport/civil-document authority

-Inadequate screening/vetting

-Government's lack of physical control over territory

-Security/armed-conflict conditions

What would need to improve:

Reliable identity and vetting systems, territorial governance and security conditions.

🇧🇫 Burkina Faso

U.S. concerns:

-Terrorist activity

-Visa overstays

-Historical refusal to accept removable nationals

What would need to improve:

Security/counterterrorism conditions, overstay compliance and repatriation cooperation.

🇱🇦 Laos

U.S. concerns:

-High visa-overstay rates

-Historical failure to accept removable nationals

What would need to improve: visa compliance and repatriation cooperation.

🇲🇱 Mali

U.S. concerns:

-Armed conflict

-Terrorist organizations operating in parts of the country

What would need to improve:

security, government control and the ability to mitigate terrorist threats relevant to U.S. screening/vetting.

🇳🇪 Niger

U.S. concerns:

-Terrorist activity/security risk

-Visa overstays

What would need to improve:

security/counterterrorism conditions and visa compliance.

🇸🇱 Sierra Leone

U.S. concerns:

-High visa-overstay rates

-Historical failure to accept removable nationals

What would need to improve:

visa compliance and repatriation cooperation.

🇸🇸 South Sudan

U.S. concerns:

-High student/exchange overstay rate

-Historical failure to accept removable nationals

What would need to improve: visa compliance and repatriation cooperation.

🇸🇾 Syria

U.S. concerns:

-Security instability

-Inadequate central authority for passports/civil documents

-Inadequate screening and vetting

-Visa overstays

What would need to improve: identity/document systems, screening/vetting, security conditions and visa compliance.

🟠 Countries Under Partial Restrictions

🇦🇴 Angola

Main public concern:

-high visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve: visa compliance/lower overstay rates.

🇦🇬 Antigua and Barbuda

Main public concern:

-citizenship-by-investment (CBI) historically available without residency.

What would need to improve:

Address U.S. concerns about identity/security risks associated with CBI without meaningful residency requirements.

🇧🇯 Benin

Main public concern:

-high visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve:

visa compliance/lower overstays.

🇧🇮 Burundi

Main public concern:

-high visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve:

visa compliance/lower overstays.

🇨🇮 Côte d'Ivoire

Main public concern:

-visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve:

visa compliance/lower overstays.

🇨🇺 Cuba

U.S. concerns:

-State sponsor of terrorism designation

-Insufficient law-enforcement information sharing

-Historical refusal to accept removable nationals

-Visa overstays

What would need to improve:

information sharing, repatriation cooperation and visa compliance, alongside the broader national-security issue cited by the U.S.

🇩🇲 Dominica

Main public concern:

-citizenship-by-investment historically available without residency.

What would need to improve:

address U.S. identity/security concerns surrounding the CBI system.

🇬🇦 Gabon

Main public concern:

-high visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve:

visa compliance/lower overstays.

🇬🇲 The Gambia

U.S. concerns:

-High visa-overstay rates

-Historical refusal to accept removable nationals

What would need to improve:

visa compliance and repatriation cooperation.

🇲🇼 Malawi

Main public concern:

-very high visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve:

visa compliance/lower overstays.

🇲🇷 Mauritania

U.S. concerns:

-Visa overstays

-Limited government presence in parts of the country creating screening/vetting difficulties

What would need to improve:

screening/vetting capacity, government reach and visa compliance.

🇳🇬 Nigeria

U.S. concerns:

-Boko Haram and Islamic State activity in parts of -Nigeria, creating screening/vetting difficulties

-Visa overstays

What would need to improve:

screening/vetting and security capability in relation to terrorist threats, plus visa compliance/lower overstays.

🇸🇳 Senegal

Main public concern:

-visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve:

visa compliance/lower overstay.

🇹🇿 Tanzania

Main public concern:

-visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve:

visa compliance/lower overstays.

🇹🇬 Togo

Main public concern:

-High visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve:

visa compliance/lower overstays.

🇹🇴 Tonga

Main public concern:

-visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve:

visa compliance/lower overstays.

🇻🇪 Venezuela

U.S. concerns:

-Passport/civil-document authority

-Inadequate screening and vetting

-Historical refusal to accept removable nationals

-Visa overstays

What would need to improve:

identity/document systems, screening/vetting, repatriation cooperation and visa compliance.

🇿🇲 Zambia

Main public concern:

-high visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve:

visa compliance/lower overstays.

🇿🇼 Zimbabwe

Main public concern:

-visa-overstay rates.

What would need to improve: visa compliance/lower overstays.

🇹🇲 What About Turkmenistan?

Turkmenistan is useful because it shows that these restrictions can actually be modified country-by-country.

PP 10998 says Turkmenistan engaged productively with the United States and made significant progress improving identity management and information sharing. The U.S. therefore removed its B/F/M/J nonimmigrant restrictions, although immigrant-entry restrictions remained because the proclamation says some concerns remained.

That doesn't guarantee the same result or timeline for another country, but it is an actual example inside PP 10998 of documented progress leading to reduced restrictions.

⚖️ One Important Thing to Understand

The proclamation requires the State Department and other agencies to continue engaging the affected countries about measures necessary to meet U.S. screening, vetting, immigration and security requirements. It also requires recurring 180-day reports recommending whether restrictions should be continued, terminated, modified or supplemented.

So these publicly identified problems matter—but we should not tell people that fixing one listed problem automatically removes a country's restrictions. The proclamation says decisions are based on the totality of the circumstances, and some of the information the government uses is classified.

If anyone has questions about a particular country, please ask. We can dig deeper into that country's specific issues and sources. ❤️🌍

SOURCES

PP 10998 — Federal Register:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/19/2025-23570/restricting-and-limiting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united

PP 10998 — GovInfo:

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-202501199

PP 10949 — White House:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/restricting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-united-states-from-foreign-terrorists-and-other-national-security-and-public-safety-threats/

State Department — PP 10998:

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-of-visa-issuance-to-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states.html

There are 39 countries represented by these restrictions, and all of our situations are different. Different countries, different visa categories, different families, different timelines.

But I think a lot of us come here carrying the same things in our hearts.

We want answers.

We want progress.

We want to know what happens next.

And most of all, we want to be with the people we love. ❤️

Some of us are spouses waiting for our husbands or wives. Some are parents, children, students, applicants, friends or family members watching someone they love go through this. Some people may be checking for updates every day. Some may have stopped checking as often because it became too painful.

And some of us are probably lying awake at night thinking about questions that someone else in this community is lying awake thinking about too.

That's why I hope this can continue to be more than a place where we collect information.

I want us to support each other while we wait.

You don't have to have legal knowledge. You don't have to discover a new government announcement. You don't even have to know what to say.

Sometimes somebody sharing their experience helps.

Sometimes it's answering a question.

Sometimes it's saying, “I'm going through this too.”

And honestly, sometimes even leaving a ❤️ under somebody's comment is enough to remind them that another person saw them.

For those of us who have faith, I also believe there is room here for hope even when we don't know the outcome or the timing. My faith doesn't mean I know exactly what is going to happen. It means I don't have to give up simply because I don't know yet.

“Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” — Romans 12:12 (ESV)

So as this community grows, please keep adding what you can. Share information. Ask questions. Correct something respectfully when it needs correcting. Encourage somebody when you can. Tell your story if you're comfortable.

There may be someone quietly reading who needed exactly what you decided to say that day.

We're from different places, but we're here asking many of the same questions and hoping for many of the same things.

None of us has to wait completely alone. ❤️🌍

Dominica is one of the countries currently subject to partial restrictions under Presidential Proclamation 10998, but its government has been actively engaging with the United States regarding those restrictions.

Following the December 2025 announcement of PP 10998, Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit said Dominica immediately initiated discussions with the U.S. Embassy and officials in Washington with the objective of having the restrictions reversed.

Those discussions have continued.

In July 2026, Prime Minister Skerrit said Dominica believes it has taken the actions necessary to address the concerns raised by the United States and publicly called on the U.S. government to reconsider the restrictions at the earliest opportunity.

There has also been broader cooperation between the two governments. Earlier this year, Dominica agreed to accept certain third-country asylum seekers from the United States. Skerrit described that agreement as one of the areas of cooperation that developed while Dominica was working to resolve the U.S. restrictions.

Why this may matter

PP 10998 provides for recurring reviews of the country restrictions and allows recommendations that restrictions be continued, modified, supplemented or terminated.

Government-to-government engagement and efforts by affected countries to address U.S. concerns are therefore important developments to track.

However, this does not mean Dominica's restrictions have been lifted.

I have not located an official U.S. announcement removing Dominica from PP 10998 or confirming that the United States considers all of its concerns resolved.

CURRENT STATUS — September 2026

🟢 Dominica has publicly confirmed engagement with the United States.

🟢 Its government says it believes it has taken steps necessary to address U.S. concerns.

🟢 Dominica is explicitly seeking reconsideration of the restrictions.

🟡 We do not yet have confirmation that the U.S. government considers those measures sufficient.

🔴 Dominica remains subject to PP 10998 at this time.

This is a developing situation worth watching, especially as future PP 10998 reviews occur. 🇩🇲🇺🇸🌍

SOURCES:

Dominica News Online — Government of Dominica statement on U.S. visa restrictions:

https://dominicanewsonline.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/UPDATE-PRESS-RELEASE-US-Visa-Restriction-2025-Decision.pdf

Jamaica Observer — Dominica PM urges U.S. to reconsider visa restrictions:

https://www.jamaicaobserver.com/2026/07/02/dominica-pm-urges-us-reconsider-visa-restriction-soonest-opportunity/

Associated Press — U.S.–Dominica cooperation / agreement involving third-country asylum seekers:

https://apnews.com/article/271bb5b2c3bc545cb3084e117474103e

U.S. Department of State — Presidential Proclamation 10998 visa restrictions:

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-of-visa-issuance-to-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states.html

White House — Presidential Proclamation 10998: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/restricting-and-limiting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states/

Nigeria and the United States held the second session of their Joint Working Group in Washington, D.C. on August 12–13, 2026.

I’m sharing this because it may be worth watching for people following Nigeria’s status under Presidential Proclamation 10998. To be clear: neither government announced any change to PP 10998, and this meeting was not announced as negotiations to remove Nigeria from the 39-country restrictions.

The Joint Working Group is officially focused on issues surrounding Nigeria’s U.S. Country of Particular Concern (CPC) designation and broader U.S.–Nigeria security cooperation.

According to the U.S. Department of State, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Allison Hooker hosted a Nigerian delegation led by National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu. This was the second session of the group, following its first meeting in Abuja in January 2026.

The two governments reviewed progress involving:

• Counterterrorism prosecutions

• Combating terrorism financing

• Protection of vulnerable communities

• Strengthening Nigerian judicial and security institutions

• Military-to-military cooperation

• Biometric information sharing

• Law-enforcement capacity building

• Resettlement and protection of internally displaced persons

The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs separately said the discussions included intelligence gathering and coordination, more effective border-control measures, terror financing, accountability, security cooperation, and protection of vulnerable communities.

The U.S. also acknowledged several actions Nigeria says it has taken, including prosecution of hundreds of Boko Haram and ISIS-WA suspects, expansion of judicial capacity, and recruitment and training of 50,000 additional police officers. The State Department also made clear that challenges remain.

Why could this be relevant to PP 10998?

Nigeria remains subject to PP 10998's partial restrictions, including the suspension of all immigrant visas for Nigerian nationals unless an exception applies. IR-1/CR-1 immediate-relative visas are no longer categorically exempt under PP 10998.

This Joint Working Group does not change that.

However, some of the subjects being addressed—particularly biometric information sharing, intelligence cooperation, border controls, counterterrorism and law enforcement capacity—are relevant to the broader security and vetting relationship between the two governments. That makes this worth following alongside any future PP 10998 country reviews or U.S.–Nigeria visa negotiations.

There is also evidence that visa and migration issues have been discussed separately. In May, Nigeria's Foreign Ministry reported discussions with the U.S. Embassy covering “border and migration challenges,” intelligence sharing, counterterrorism and “visa issues.”

Current status: There has been no announced removal of Nigeria from PP 10998 and no restoration of the IR-1/CR-1 immediate-relative exception. This is a diplomatic/security development to watch—not an announcement that the visa restrictions are changing.

If anyone finds an official U.S. or Nigerian government statement connecting these negotiations directly to PP 10998 or Nigeria's visa restrictions, please share it here with the source.

SOURCES

1. Nigeria Ministry of Foreign Affairs — U.S.-Nigeria Joint Working Group meeting, August 13, 2026

https://foreignaffairs.gov.ng/news/ambassador-bianca-odumegwu-ojukwu-and-ambassador-sola-enikanolaiye-are-part-of-nigerian-delegation-led-by-mallam-nuhu-ribadu-to-usa-nigeria-joint-working-group-meeting-in-washington-dc/

2. Nigeria Ministry of Foreign Affairs — May 2026 U.S.-Nigeria discussions covering border/migration challenges, counterterrorism, intelligence sharing and visa issues

https://foreignaffairs.gov.ng/news/ambassador-bianca-odumegwu-ojukwu-had-a-very-constructive-engagement-with-the-charge-daffaires-of-the-united-states-embassy-keith-heffern/

3. U.S. Department of State — Current Presidential Proclamation 10998 / 39-country visa restrictions

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-of-visa-issuance-to-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states.html

4. U.S. Department of State — Second Session of the U.S.-Nigeria Joint Working Group (August 13, 2026)

https://www.publicnow.com/view/F2DD03E040EAC16D363A5079133DC7B6B87AE233

There has been an important development affecting some people connected to the 39 countries, but I want to separate it clearly from Presidential Proclamation 10998 itself.

On August 24, 2026, a federal court in Red Eagle Law, L.C. v. Edlow issued a preliminary injunction blocking two USCIS policy memoranda that had placed certain immigration benefit applications involving nationals or natives of the 39 countries into adjudication holds.

USCIS publicly confirmed on August 28 that it will comply with the court’s order while further judicial review remains possible.

The court also certified a class covering certain affected applicants whose asylum or other USCIS benefit applications were pending and subject to those holds.

What this means:

Certain USCIS applications inside the United States that had been frozen under these policies must now be adjudicated through the normal USCIS process while the court order remains in effect.

What this does NOT mean:

This ruling does not automatically lift Presidential Proclamation 10998.

PP 10998 is a separate policy governing visa issuance and entry restrictions for nationals of the affected countries. The State Department continues to list PP 10998 as in effect.

So someone may see headlines saying a court “blocked the 39-country hold” or “USCIS must resume processing,” but that should not be interpreted as meaning the 39-country visa/entry restrictions themselves have ended.

This distinction matters because several different policies and lawsuits are affecting people from the same countries at the same time.

CURRENT STATUS — September 6, 2026:

✅ USCIS says it is complying with the Red Eagle injunction.

⚖️ Further litigation remains possible.

🚫 PP 10998 itself remains in effect.

We’ll continue tracking both the USCIS litigation and the separate consular/entry restrictions here. ❤️🌍⚖️

Sources:

USCIS — Recent Court Order on Hold Policies

AILA — Red Eagle Law / 39-country adjudication hold update

U.S. Department of State — PP 10998 visa restrictions

I've been in several spaces for people affected by these restrictions, and there's something I've been thinking about.

I've seen people say the restrictions will never change. I've seen people guarantee that nothing can happen until there's another president. I've seen people discourage families from following lawsuits, diplomatic developments or policy reviews because they believe none of it matters.

I've also seen people enter these spaces who don't appear to be affected at all, sometimes seemingly just to watch, provoke people, impersonate affected individuals, or make already-stressed families feel worse.

I don't believe we should give people false hope. But I also don't believe pessimism should be presented as fact.

There is a difference between saying “I don't think this will change” and saying “This cannot change.” One is an opinion. The other is a factual claim that should require evidence.

PP 10998 itself provides for recurring reviews. Litigation is ongoing. Some affected governments are engaging with the United States. None of those things guarantee that restrictions will change — but neither does anyone currently have the ability to guarantee that they won't.

I also don't think it helps when different affected groups are compared as though every restriction, lawsuit, or community should progress in exactly the same way. Different policies involve different legal questions, government actions, court challenges, and timelines. One group receiving information or seeing progress sooner does not mean another group isn't researching, advocating, or hoping just as deeply for their families to be reunited. We're all navigating different circumstances, and none of us should be made to feel inadequate because our path looks different. ❤️

So I'm curious how everyone else feels:

Where is the line between being realistic and spreading hopelessness?

Have you experienced negativity or misinformation in other immigration spaces since these restrictions began?

And what do you think an affected-family community should do when someone presents predictions — positive or negative — as certainty?

I want this to be a place where we're allowed to be scared, angry, hopeful, exhausted, optimistic or pessimistic. But whatever we're feeling, facts should remain facts, and opinions should remain opinions. ❤️🌍

As we follow lawsuits affecting the 39-country community, we may sometimes be able to see that a new court filing exists without being able to immediately read the actual document.

We ran into this with the September 4 filing in Chikumba v. U.S. Department of State. The public docket shows that a dismissal-related filing was entered, but attempting to open the document redirects to PACER, the federal courts’ electronic records system, which requires an account to access court documents.

This is something we should probably expect to encounter again as we follow federal litigation.

The good news is that PACER documents sometimes later become freely available through services such as CourtListener’s RECAP Archive. RECAP receives copies of court documents contributed by PACER users, so a document that is inaccessible to us today may become publicly readable later.

However, not every PACER document automatically appears there. Public access can depend on someone with PACER access obtaining the document and contributing it to the archive.

So this is one area where community involvement could really help. ❤️

If you already have PACER access, work with federal court records, have access to filings through another reliable source, or happen to find a publicly accessible copy of a document we're looking for, please feel free to share it with the community.

We will still independently verify documents before presenting their contents as confirmed information. But having members who can help locate filings would make it much easier for all of us to understand important developments as they happen.

And if we ever say “we can see the filing, but we can't read the document yet,” that does not mean the filing is secret or that something is wrong. It may simply mean the PDF has not yet made its way into a free public archive.

Thank you to everyone who has already been bringing docket updates, links, screenshots, and information into the community. This is exactly how a research-focused community becomes stronger. ❤️⚖️🌍

Note: Creating a PACER account is free. PACER generally charges fees when court records are accessed rather than charging a subscription fee. Fees totaling $30 or less in a quarter are currently waived.

SOURCES:

PACER — Finder

https://pacer.uscourts.gov/find-case

CourtListener — RECAP Archive

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/

Free Law Project — RECAP

https://free.law/recap/

Chikumba docket on CourtListener

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72232725/chikumba-v-us-department-of-state/

There are several different lawsuits involving policies affecting nationals of the 39 countries. They do not all challenge the same thing, and a ruling in one case does not necessarily remove the visa/travel restrictions themselves.

Here is a brief overview of some of the major cases worth following:

⚖️ Chikumba v. U.S. Department of State

This case focuses on the State Department's handling of visa applications involving nationals affected by the restrictions. The plaintiffs challenge the government's refusal or delay in adjudicating their visa cases and raise the important legal distinction between restricting entry into the United States and stopping or delaying visa adjudication.

This is the lawsuit we've already been following closely in the community, and I will continue updating the separate Chikumba thread as developments occur.

Source

https://eiglaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Chikumba-v-Department-of-State.pdf

⚖️ Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS

This case challenged several USCIS policies affecting immigration benefits, including a hold on pending benefit requests for people from the travel-ban countries. On June 5, 2026, the federal district court declared the challenged policies unlawful and vacated them. USCIS subsequently acknowledged that the ruling applied agency-wide, although litigation has continued on appeal. This ruling concerned USCIS benefit processing; it did not repeal PP 10998's visa/entry restrictions.

SOURCE

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/rhode-island/ridce/1%3A2026cv00132/61671/28

⚖️ Red Eagle Law, L.C. v. Edlow

This case also challenges USCIS adjudication holds affecting nationals of the 39 countries. On August 24, 2026, the court certified a class covering qualifying nationals of the 39 countries and Palestinian Authority with certain pending USCIS applications subject to the holds, and issued a preliminary injunction against those holds. USCIS stated that it would comply with the order while further litigation continues. Again, this concerns USCIS processing and does not itself lift PP 10998's visa/entry restrictions.

UPDATE — August 28, 2026 / Verified September 6, 2026

USCIS has now publicly confirmed that it will comply with the August 24 preliminary injunction in Red Eagle Law, L.C. v. Edlow. The court enjoined USCIS Policy Memoranda PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 and ordered USCIS to adjudicate affected applications through its normal process.

The court also certified a class covering certain citizens or natives of the 39 countries listed in PP 10949 or PP 10998, as well as certain Palestinian Authority applicants, whose pending asylum or other USCIS benefit applications were subject to those adjudication holds and had not received a final decision as of the class-certification date. CURRENT STATUS — September 6, 2026: USCIS says it strongly disagrees with the order but is complying while possible further judicial review remains pending. This concerns USCIS benefit adjudication inside the United States and does not itself lift PP 10998’s visa or entry restrictions.

SOURCE

https://www.aila.org/library/district-court-issues-preliminary-injunction-to-lift-adjudication-hold-for-travel-ban-countries

📣 Know of another case or potential lawsuit?

If you know of another lawsuit involving the 39-country restrictions or related policies — whether it has already been filed, is currently being organized, or may be filed soon — please feel free to comment below or DM me.

If possible, please include a source, court document, case number, attorney statement, or anything else that can help us verify the information before adding it here.

I’m open to any credible information that can help us stay informed and involved as a community. The goal is for all of us to help each other understand what is happening and what may affect our families. ❤️⚖️🌍

So far, these are the cases I’ve been able to identify and verify as directly relevant to policies affecting people from the 39 countries. If I learn of others, I’ll update the community.

A lot of our conversations understandably revolve around policies, court cases, interviews, embassies, case numbers, and waiting.

But behind every case is an actual family.

For me, I’m waiting for my husband in Nigeria. We have a little boy together who still hasn’t been able to meet his dad in person. One of the things I hold onto is imagining the day they finally meet and we’re all together as a family. ❤️

Some days I feel hopeful. Other days the uncertainty is exhausting. Researching everything happening with the 39-country restrictions gives me something productive to do, but at the end of the day, I’m living through this right alongside everyone here.

What are you holding onto while you wait?

Maybe it’s the airport reunion you picture. Your children finally having both parents home. Starting your married life together. Seeing someone you haven’t hugged in years. Or simply believing that eventually something will change.

Share as much or as little as you’re comfortable with. ❤️🌍

We spend a lot of time talking about cases and policies here, but I want there to always be room to talk about the people we're waiting for, too. 🙏🏽