In a decision that could determine the fate of thousands of immigrant families, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California on August 28, 2026, temporarily vacated the Trump administration's blanket hold on Diversity Visa processing — ordering USCIS to immediately resume adjudicating pending cases before the fast-approaching September 30 fiscal year deadline.
The Ruling: Medani v. Trump
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued the order in Medani, et al., v. Trump, et al., 26-cv-6332 (NDCA), temporarily vacating PM-602-0193 pending further litigation.
The court directed USCIS,
"to the extent practicable and in good faith, to take all reasonable steps during the remainder of the Diversity Visa fiscal year to resume ordinary adjudication of plaintiffs' pending adjustment of status applications without applying" PM-602-0193.
Critically, the ruling went beyond the individual plaintiffs.
The court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying a subclass covering "all selectees and derivative beneficiaries under the FY-2026 Diversity Visa Program who are subject to the USCIS DV Hold imposed by Policy Memorandum PM-602-0193."
The decision was part of a broader order that
preliminarily enjoined and temporarily vacated three policies halting FY-2026 Diversity Visa adjudication: the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0193, the State Department's "Updated Diversity Visa Guidance" pausing all DV visa issuance, and the State Department's "Notice Pausing Visa Approval for 75 Countries."
Background: The Eight-Month Freeze
On December 19, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0193, directing USCIS officers to pause adjudication and conduct additional review of certain green card applications filed by Diversity Visa lottery winners inside the United States.
The memorandum mandated that all noncitizens with pending adjustment of status, ancillary benefits, and waiver applications undergo a thorough review process to "fully assess all national, criminal, and related grounds of inadmissibility and deportation."
On December 23, 2025, the State Department announced an immediate pause on all diversity visa issuances
, further compounding the impact on DV-2026 selectees processing through U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.
The combined effect of these policies was devastating:
visa issuance was halted at embassies, all pending DV adjustment-of-status applications were placed on "hold and review" with no approvals or denials being issued, and even ancillary benefits like work authorization and advance parole were frozen.
The lawsuit, brought by 664 Diversity Visa selectee families representing 1,489 plaintiffs, challenged the administration's blanket suspension of the DV program.
The Court's Legal Reasoning
Judge Davila's analysis proved deeply unfavorable for the government.
The court held the policies are final agency action despite their "temporary" framing, and that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims because the agencies offered no reasoned explanation for categorical suspensions, considered no alternatives, and ignored reliance interests.
The court agreed with the analysis in the related Ivanov v. Trump case, which held that these same three policies are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and found that the defendants failed to provide a reasoned explanation to justify the scope of these three categorical policies.
The judge said the administration had not provided a sufficiently reasoned explanation for adopting sweeping, categorical pauses affecting all applicants.
Government Response
Despite the strong language of the ruling,
USCIS "strongly disagrees with the Court's order but will follow its terms pending possible further judicial review."
This language signals that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit remains a real possibility.
The State Department subsequently updated its website on August 31, 2026, confirming that the December 2025 Diversity Visa Issuance pause was no longer in effect as of August 28, 2026, in line with the court's directive.
Judge Davila also ordered the parties to submit a joint status report by September 18 regarding the status of adjudications and to propose a schedule for continued litigation.
The September 30 Deadline: A Race Against the Clock
The ruling's urgency cannot be overstated.
The order is particularly significant because the fiscal year for the 2026 Diversity Visa program ends September 30, leaving affected applicants a limited period to complete processing before unused Diversity Visas expire.
By statute,
diversity immigrant visas must be issued by September 30 of the applicable fiscal year, or the visa number is lost.
This means that even with the court's favorable ruling, DV-2026 selectees face a compressed window of barely one month — after an eight-month freeze — to finalize their green card applications.
The practical effect of the order was to unfreeze machinery, not to guarantee visas.
The scale of potentially affected applicants is substantial.
For DV-2026, roughly 129,516 worldwide selectees were invited to apply.
By statute, the program makes up to 55,000 immigrant visas available each year.
What This Means for Affected Applicants
The ruling does not mean automatic visa issuance, removal of ordinary eligibility checks, extension of the September 30 deadline, or a final judgment in the entire lawsuit.
Rather,
for affected selectees, the ruling means that pending cases may resume ordinary processing and that applications previously refused solely because of the DV pause or the 75-country pause are eligible for reconsideration.
With the policy temporarily suspended, USCIS must handle those petitions under the standard adjudication framework that existed before PM-602-0193 was announced. The case is still underway, and the court's injunction only applies for the current Diversity Visa fiscal year while further litigation is ongoing.
Practical Guidance for DV-2026 Selectees
For those affected by this ruling, time is of the essence. Applicants should consider the following steps:
- Contact USCIS or your consulate immediately to confirm the status of your case and any next steps required to advance adjudication.
- Ensure all documentation is current — medical exams, civil documents, passports, and financial support evidence should be ready for submission or resubmission if requested.
- Monitor for government appeals — USCIS has signaled possible further judicial review, meaning the injunction could theoretically be stayed by an appellate court before September 30.
- Consult an immigration attorney — given the complexity of the legal landscape and the tight deadline, professional guidance is strongly recommended to protect your rights.
The Bigger Picture
This ruling is part of a broader pattern of federal courts pushing back against the administration's immigration hold policies.
Just days earlier, on August 24, 2026, the same court in Red Eagle Law v. Edlow enjoined separate USCIS policy memoranda (PM 602-0192 and PM 602-0194), ordering the agency to adjudicate applications in the normal course.
The Diversity Visa program has long been a flashpoint in immigration debates.
President Trump has repeatedly urged Congress to end the program because of his concerns
about the random lottery selection process. However, the program remains enshrined in federal statute, and courts have consistently held that executive agencies cannot unilaterally dismantle congressionally mandated immigration pathways through procedural holds.
With just weeks remaining before the September 30 deadline, the stakes for DV-2026 selectees could not be higher. Every day of processing delay represents a permanent loss of opportunity for families who won the visa lottery and met all legal requirements — only to see their cases frozen by administrative action that a federal court has now found likely unlawful.
---
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are a DV-2026 selectee affected by this ruling, please contact our office for a consultation regarding your specific circumstances.