A federal judge in the Northern District of California has supplemented an earlier ruling on the diversity visa program, ordering the State Department to take an additional ten days beyond the close of fiscal year 2026 to reconsider applications it refused solely because of now-vacated pause policies. The September 30 order, issued in Medani v. Trump, narrows its focus to the State Department's consular processing backlog and does not impose any new obligation on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
This update supersedes earlier coverage that described September 30 as a looming deadline. Fiscal year 2026 has now ended. The new order concerns a limited remedy for covered State Department cases; it is not a general extension of all diversity visa deadlines. USCIS was expressly outside the supplemental motion because the plaintiffs reported that it had diligently complied with the earlier order.
What the September 30 Order Actually Does
The order, filed as ECF No. 137 in the Northern District of California, responds to plaintiffs seeking further relief after the August 28 ruling addressing USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0193 and the State Department’s diversity-visa and 75-country pause policies. The September 30 court record distinguishes the agencies’ compliance. It directs DOS to take ten additional days past fiscal year 2026 to reconsider diversity visa applications refused solely under the specified DOS pauses and to resume ordinary adjudication of covered cases.
Critically, the order does not extend to USCIS. The court explicitly noted that USCIS had diligently complied with the prior order and was therefore not subject to the present motion. That distinction matters: diversity visa selectees pursuing adjustment of status through USCIS are governed by the original August 28 framework, not by this newer, narrower State Department remedy.
USCIS Side: What the Earlier Order Required
USCIS’s September 4 public notice described the agency’s response to the August 28 order vacating the hold on diversity visa adjustment applications. The notice said it would adjudicate covered FY2026 selectees and derivative beneficiaries on a reasonable, good-faith basis for the remainder of that fiscal year. That period has ended. The earlier notice must not be read as confirmation of a new October adjudication period, and it never promised blanket approval rather than individual eligibility review.
The supplemental order records the plaintiffs’ report that USCIS diligently complied, explaining why USCIS was outside the new motion. An adjustment applicant therefore cannot use this DOS-specific ten-day remedy as proof that their own fiscal-year deadline was extended. Any further relief for a particular USCIS file would need its own legal basis and current case-specific assessment.
State Department Side: Reconsideration Window, Not Automatic Approval
For applicants whose cases were refused by a consular officer solely because of the DOS diversity visa pause or the 75-country pause, the ten-day supplemental window creates an opportunity for the State Department to resume ordinary adjudication and reconsider those refusals. The order requires status reporting on a Monday-Wednesday-Friday schedule at noon Pacific time, with a case management conference scheduled for October 15 at 10 a.m.
The order does not guarantee visa issuance. It directs reconsideration under ordinary processing standards, so normal eligibility, documentary, and admissibility requirements still apply. Secondary coverage from Fragomen and BAL helps explain the earlier dispute, but the operative scope and any later processing calendar must come from the court record and consular instructions rather than being inferred from a news summary.
What Remains Unsettled
Several points remain unresolved based on the current record. No complete appellate docket has been verified, so it would be premature to say whether any party has appealed or sought a stay of either the August 28 or September 30 orders. Later public reports have suggested implementation shifting to windows in mid-October, but no primary source confirms a specific operational start date beyond the ten-day supplemental period described in ECF 137.
The court also distinguished this relief from the broader equitable remedy issued in the separate Goodluck litigation, and the September 30 order does not reserve unused diversity visa numbers for later use. Applicants and attorneys should treat this as a fiscal-year 2026 case-specific remedy, not a change to the diversity visa program's annual registration or selection process for future fiscal years.
Practical Guidance for Affected Applicants
Selectees should determine which agency adjudicated or refused their case, because the two tracks have different legal postures. A consular refusal based solely on a specified pause may fall within the remedy. An adjustment application with USCIS does not obtain the same extension from this supplemental order. The refusal reason, program year, agency, and latest instructions all matter.
Given the compressed timeline and the fact that fiscal year 2026 has closed, applicants with pending or recently refused cases should consult with counsel promptly to understand whether their specific refusal falls within the scope of the September 30 order before the window closes.
Clinch Law Legal Analysis
Sources
- https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/court-order-on-diversity-immigrant-visa-program-hold-policy
- https://www.bal.com/immigration-news/united-states-state-department-update-on-diversity-visa-issuance-pause/
- https://www.fragomen.com/insights/state-department-to-resume-diversity-visa-issuance.html
- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2026cv06332/472914/137/
This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration outcomes depend on individual facts and current law.
The first practical question is which agency holds your case. A person seeking a diversity visa at a consulate abroad cannot assume the same relief applies to an adjustment application pending with USCIS inside the United States. The September 30 order addresses the State Department and expressly excludes USCIS from that supplemental motion. Keep the refusal notice, identify whether a vacated pause was its sole basis, and check the consulate’s current instructions before treating the ten-day remedy as a personal appointment or filing deadline.
The court ordered further adjudication, not a visa for everyone affected by delay. Ordinary eligibility requirements remain relevant, and the court declined to reserve the pool of unused visas. For someone whose fiscal-year deadline has passed, the distinction matters: this is enforcement of particular orders for covered cases, not a general reopening of the diversity visa program. The precise implementation window and any later stay must be verified from the subsequent court record before committing money to travel or assuming an application can still be completed.
Questions Clients Are Asking#
Does the supplemental order extend every USCIS adjustment deadline?
No. The September 30 supplemental order addresses DOS, and says USCIS was not subject to that motion because the plaintiffs reported diligent compliance. It does not create a new general adjustment-of-status deadline or extend every USCIS case beyond the fiscal year.
My consular visa was refused under the pause policy, what now?
The September 30 order directs reconsideration of covered refusals solely based on the specified DOS pauses. It describes ten additional days, but this review does not verify the final operational calendar or a later stay. Confirm coverage and current instructions with the consulate before relying on any dates.
Is visa approval guaranteed under this new order?
No. The order requires ordinary adjudication rather than automatic visa issuance. Applicants must still satisfy the requirements that apply to their individual cases. The court also declined the requested reservation of unused visas; the remedy should not be read as a guaranteed visa number or a reopened program.