WASHINGTON (Diya TV) — An Indian-origin federal judge has struck down a Trump administration policy that froze certain green card applications over concerns that some immigrants could rely on public benefits. The ruling marks a legal setback for the administration’s immigration screening efforts and could affect visa applicants from about 75 countries.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled on July 31 that the State Department exceeded its legal authority by enforcing the policy. He said Congress did not give the department the power to apply such a broad restriction under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The case centered on a policy issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It delayed or blocked some immigrant visa applications, including family-sponsored petitions and certain employment-based green card cases. The policy targeted applicants from about 75 countries, including Nigeria, Colombia, Russia and Egypt. Officials argued that some applicants could become dependent on public assistance after arriving in the United States.

However, Judge Mehta found that the policy conflicted with federal immigration law. He wrote that Congress assigned immigration decisions to individual consular officers. Therefore, the State Department could not replace that authority with a department-wide policy.

The lawsuit came from Newton De Moura Gomes, a Brazilian national seeking permanent residence through the EB-5 investor visa program. Gomes filed the case in May after the State Department did not decide on his application. He argued that the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act by delaying his visa and enforcing a policy that conflicts with federal law.

The EB-5 investor visa program allows foreign nationals to apply for permanent residency by investing in commercial projects that create jobs in the United States. Gomes claimed that he met the legal requirements but still faced delays because of the public charge policy.

Judge Mehta agreed that the challenge focused on the State Department’s policy rather than an individual visa decision. As a result, he ruled that the legal doctrine known as consular nonreviewability did not prevent the court from reviewing the case. That doctrine usually protects decisions made by consular officers from judicial review. However, the judge said it does not shield a broader government policy from legal scrutiny.

In his decision, Mehta said the policy effectively removed the discretion that Congress gave to consular officers. He wrote that the department’s approach plainly replaced individualized reviews with a blanket rule. Therefore, he concluded that the policy exceeded the authority granted under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The judge also ordered the State Department to stop applying the public charge policy to Gomes’ visa application. In addition, he directed the department to reconsider the case on an individual basis. According to the order, officials must complete that review within 60 days after a consular officer determines that the application is complete.

The ruling does not automatically cancel the policy for every visa applicant. Instead, it directly applies to Gomes’ case. Still, immigration attorneys say the decision could influence future legal challenges if other applicants raise similar claims. Moreover, the ruling may shape how federal courts review immigration policies that affect visa processing.

For now, the State Department has not announced whether it will appeal the decision.