What do you think — when will they lift it, and how will everything turn out with the public charge?
1 Like
Ira, hi. I’ll give my opinion without bureaucratic fog.
I know perfectly well that you yourself understand this better than most, so I’ll skip the primer. But since this question is popping up for many people right now, I’ll lay everything out so this comment can be forwarded to others. Because there’s a lot of panic around EB-1, admin processing and this whole story, people send me DMs, many are eyeing O-1 and even trying to jump ship before they’ve filed EB-1 or NIW, and as usual there’s far less clarity than people want.
TL;DR
First. The State Department isn’t going to lift this pause voluntarily. The hope now isn’t “maybe they’ll change their minds,” it’s the courts.
Second. You need to watch not only the high-profile case CLINIC v. Rubio that everyone’s heard about, but primarily Storie v. Trump — the class action by Curtis Morrison. That’s where, in my view, the first practical shift could come.
Third. Even if the pause gets broken by the courts, the public charge issue won’t go away. If anything, it will likely get stricter. So one problem might ease while another intensifies.
Now in order.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT WON’T BACK DOWN VOLUNTARILY
I don’t think there’s much mystery here. From the language they themselves use, it’s clear: this isn’t a temporary awkwardness, a technical glitch, or “oh, wait a week.” This is a deliberate policy.
So I wouldn’t expect everything to magically “blow over.” The real fork in the road now is judicial.
And here many are looking in the wrong place.
NOT JUST CLINIC
Everyone knows about CLINIC v. Rubio. It’s loud, media-friendly, with a solid coalition and an easily relatable human framing: families separated, the pause is unlawful, country-based discrimination is obvious.
But the problem is that case may take longer than people want.
Why? Because the strategy chosen there is not “stop this nonsense immediately,” but a heavier path — a merits decision. Legally powerful, but usually not the fastest route.
By contrast, Storie v. Trump, led by Curtis Morrison, is structured differently. There the aim is a preliminary injunction — simply put, it’s a request for the court not to wait for a final decision for months but to temporarily halt the contested policy now while the case proceeds. That is, not "we already won everything finally", but "the court sees the claim has serious grounds and hits the brakes for the government during the process."
Put plainly:
CLINIC is “let’s fundamentally recognize that the whole construct is unlawful.”
Storie is “stop this now, at least for our people, while you keep investigating.”
For people who are already stuck in limbo, the second path is often more important than the first.
WHY EVERYONE IS LOOKING AT CURTIS
I get that some people are tired of his name because he’s everywhere. But honestly: there’s a reason.
First, he specializes in exactly these stories — mass lawsuits against delays, pauses, holds, consular and USCIS overreach.
Second, he has a track record. Not the “runs a Telegram and gives interviews” kind, but the “judge signed the right order” kind.
Third, and this is crucial now, Curtis publicly wrote that he’s 95% sure his decision will come sooner than CLINIC’s. Can you trust that?
Given the procedural schedule, it doesn’t look like fantasy. So I’d be watching April–May 2026 as the first real window when things might start moving.
Not a guarantee. But the first reasonable window.
WHAT MATTERS FOR EB-1A AND ADMIN PROCESSING
Now to the most painful and important point.
If someone has EB-1A, the interview’s already happened, and the case wasn’t denied but is stuck in admin processing / 221(g), then oddly enough that’s not the worst scenario.
Let me explain.
The worst scenario is a formal denial. Because a denial is concrete. After that everything becomes harder, costlier and bleaker.
But the state of “case being held,” “stuck,” “admin processing,” “221(g)” — it’s unpleasant, but it’s still a live case. It’s not dead. It’s sitting on a shelf. And in the current situation that matters a lot.
That’s why I wouldn’t dramatize “admin processing” as the endgame. It’s not the end. It’s nasty, grinding, infuriating, but still not final.
THE KEY CLUE — IT’S NOT PUBLIC CHARGE, IT’S MASSIVE PARKING
This is what’s telling.
When the instruction with #4AIVPause surfaced, it became clear: people are being put into mass parking not because each person individually had a real public charge problem, but because the system was ordered to do so.
And that’s the weak spot of the whole construct.
Because public charge under the law is an individual assessment.
When you get a scheme like “we’ll put these people on hold while we figure something out,” it looks less like an individual evaluation and more like categorical freezing under another name.
That’s exactly why a legal attack is viable here. Not because the policy is unpopular, but because it’s glaringly obvious.
SANGSTER — A SMALL CASE, A BIG SIGNAL
Many miss Sangster v. Rubio because it’s not a huge systemic suit but the story of one family.
That’s a mistake.
Small cases can sometimes be more useful than big, pretty processes. They show practice, not theory: can you get a specific person out of the freezer right now?
And the answer, as we see, is: yes, sometimes you can.
So the route “your lawyer — federal court — emergency relief” works. Not for everyone, not for free, not automatically. But it works.
So people have more than just the “sit and pray for the big case” strategy — they can fight their individual case separately.
HOW THIS DIFFERS FROM 2017
This matters because many reflexively say: "well, this is like the Muslim ban; that’s already been litigated."
Not exactly.
In 2017, Trump had a strong presidential instrument under section 212(f) INA — a statute that gives the president very broad authority to restrict or close entry to foreigners if he deems their entry harmful to U.S. interests. Big presidential proclamations relying on that construct are a different animal.
Courts engaged with that tool in a very different configuration. The dispute there wasn’t just about an internal agency instruction, but about direct presidential authority — much harder for courts to counter.
This time the legal position is weaker for the government. It’s not a sweeping presidential proclamation with maximum authority; it’s an internal administrative construct by the State Department.
That opens up arguments under the APA, procedural violations, lack of legitimate rulemaking, substituting individual analysis with a mass scheme, and so on.
APA is the Administrative Procedure Act, the basic federal law about how agencies must adopt and change rules. Simply put: you can’t quietly introduce a major new policy by internal memo if you’re effectively changing the rules of the game.
In other words: this time it’s easier to litigate than back then.
But there’s bad news too.
BAD NEWS: A WIN MAY NOT HELP EVERYONE 
After Trump v. CASA it’s no longer easy to get a sweeping nationwide remedy “for everyone affected.”
The rough logic now: if you want relief, be a plaintiff, or at least be within the protected class.
That’s why Curtis gathered so many people into the suit. Not from greed or for show — because now that really matters.
Before you could hope one person would go to court and open an umbrella for everyone. That doesn’t work the same way now.
And everyone who’s thinking “I’ll wait on the sidelines and see” needs to understand: sidelines are risky now.
NOW ABOUT PUBLIC CHARGE — THE PART MANY UNDERESTIMATE
Here it’s important neither to panic nor to be complacent.
Around Feb 26–27 the State Department published an official FAQ on public charge — not a new law, but a public clarification for visa applicants and consuls about how they assess the risk that someone might rely on public benefits after entry.
Simply put: the State Department basically said out loud what consuls could already consider, but now explicitly and publicly emphasized they’ll pay closer attention to finances, health, age, education, English, and benefit history.
Here’s the FAQ: State Department - “Preventing Public Benefits Reliance”
One immigration firm — Tancinco — read the FAQ dramatically and basically called it a more aggressive and expansive approach.
Curtis, who isn’t usually given to panic, commented more mildly: the consuls’ powers were always there; they’ve just been put into a public document.
I think the truth is somewhere in between.
So: this is not a revolution from scratch. Consuls have long asked uncomfortable questions about finances, health, education, age, English, and benefit history. This isn’t new magic falling from the sky. We hear this regularly in our Wednesday calls or the admin processing chat.
But I also wouldn’t say “nothing changed at all.”
What changed is: previously it was scattered across general authority and practice; now it’s publicly highlighted, broken down into factors, and effectively signaled to be applied more carefully and strictly.
In other words: not a new gun, but an old gun turned and visibly loaded.
WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE
Now this is not abstract policy but a normal human question: who should really worry, and who shouldn’t.
1. IF YOU HAVE A STRONG EB CATEGORY — DON’T PANIC
If you have a solid employment-based category like EB-1A, EB-1B or a strong EB-2 NIW, good income, a clear career, achievements, publications, a coherent professional trajectory, decent English, and generally no obvious medical or financial red flags, public charge is usually not your primary threat.
Why.
Because by the logic of your case you’ve already proven you’re coming to the U.S. not for benefits but as a qualified person with skills, achievements and clear earning potential.
And that matters: your petition materials largely serve as a defense against public charge.
Put simply, if someone just convinced USCIS they are an extraordinary professional, in-demand researcher, or national-interest person, it’s much harder to portray them as a future “burden on the system.”
Not impossible in theory. But noticeably harder in practice.
But real life is a bit more complicated.
A strong EB-1 or EB-2NIW gives a good buffer, but doesn’t eliminate other factors entirely.
If at the interview the consul sees things that could be perceived as a risk — for example, severe chronic illnesses, health that could imply expensive future costs, poor English, no clear adaptation plan, an age that makes employment less obvious, dependent family members with major medical or special needs, weak financial reserves — then even a strong petition doesn’t provide full immunity.
Put plainly: talent, publications, and an approved I-140 are a big plus, but not an indulgence from everything else.
Especially if the consul sees not just a “strong applicant on paper” but someone who may realistically raise questions about future expenses, self-sufficiency, income, and the ability to avoid becoming a financial burden.
So the right takeaway: an approved USCIS EB-1 or strong EB-2 NIW helps a lot, but you still need to present at the interview as someone who can stand on their own feet in the U.S. without relying on benefits.
2. IF YOU’RE DV OR A FAMILY CASE WITHOUT STRONG BACKUP — IT’S TOUGHER
The most vulnerable group, in my view, is DV.
Why DV? Because they already had a thinner position on public charge, and now it’s even more so. DV lacks the dense protective structure that employment-based cases often have.
Moreover, in DV cases an affidavit of support is not always required as a central shield, so the consul may simply have less to rely on beyond the general impression of the person and their resources.
So if a DV applicant lacks strong savings, a clear plan, good English, a solid professional history, or a credible sponsor, that case is objectively more vulnerable.
Family categories without a strong sponsor also fall into an elevated risk zone. Not because they’ll be automatically rejected, but because public charge is easier to invoke as a ground for doubt there.
3. IF AGE, POOR ENGLISH, MEDICAL FACTORS OR BENEFIT HISTORY EXIST — PREPARE SERIOUSLY
This is where you shouldn’t relax at all.
If someone has:
- an age at which employment may look less likely to the consul,
- poor or no English,
- no higher education or a clear profession,
- serious chronic conditions,
- a history of receiving Medicaid or other benefits,
- weak financial reserves,
then going to the interview with a “maybe it’ll be fine” attitude is a bad idea.
Because now questions across all six factors can legitimately be asked in full force.
And this calls not for forum-level optimism but adult preparation:
- gather financial evidence,
- prepare explanations for medical issues and insurance,
- know how to talk about work and income,
- map out weak spots in advance,
- involve an attorney if needed, rather than relying on bare enthusiasm.
Otherwise you might hand the consul a problem that could have been discreetly avoided.
MY TAKE ON PUBLIC CHARGE
In one paragraph: here’s my conclusion.
The State Department FAQ is not the end of the world, but it’s not trivial either.
It doesn’t mean everyone will suddenly be cut off by public charge. But it does mean consular practice is being tightened, and people with weak profiles will have a harder time.
Strong employment-based categories, especially EB-1A / EB-1B / strong NIW, still have good resilience.
DV, family cases without a strong sponsor, and people with obvious vulnerability factors are in a worse place.
So the problem isn’t universal.
It very much depends on who the person is, what profile they have, and how well prepared they are.
OVERALL CONCLUSION ON THE WHOLE STORY
In two words: here’s my takeaway.
The pause affecting 75 countries is legally vulnerable.
The courts are a real chance, not decorative activity.
The first important window is Storie — i.e., April–May 2026.
But even if movement starts there, public charge will generally tighten.
And for the specific situation of EB-1A in admin processing I’d say this:
It’s bad.
It’s nerve-wracking.
It’s infuriating.
But it’s not the worst position and definitely not the end.
7 Likes
Honestly, the limits of what counts as public charge are very poorly defined, so it’s hard to predict.
6 Likes
Yeah, it’s a pretty murky situation — nobody can say for sure what they’ll count right now. public charge evaluates both past and future, so even if you give up subsidized insurance right now, they might still consider it. Don’t psych yourself out prematurely; the main thing is to figure out what’s absolutely off-limits and what people are currently turning a blind eye to)
6 Likes
As long as the Republicans are in the White House - it could last a long time, I think) but there’s hope that they’ll be friends with Russia again.
6 Likes
Well, I think it’ll be quiet at first — everyone on the ground is sorting out how to work now and writing up the procedures. But really, it’s constantly changing; the current situation isn’t stable, it’s bound to blow up even if you do nothing. So we just wait, there’s honestly nothing else to do here )
6 Likes
I increasingly have the feeling that what’s happening now isn’t just the resolution of local accumulated problems, but a deeper integration and coordination of all the departments that are in one way or another connected to emigration. And that in itself is neither good nor bad — it’s a natural stage in the development of the system. For the past few years a number of issues were treated rather laxly, and apparently the state decided that this mode no longer serves their objectives.
The problem is: when the big shots fight, it’s the little people who take the hit. Data connectivity between separate services is becoming tighter, information sharing is intensifying, and the strictness and focus on filtering at every stage, it seems, are reaching their maximum. What used to remain a mere formality or pass without extra attention is now increasingly becoming a separate checkpoint. And the stories about a second sobes (собес) for clients of Shamy (шамы) are a vivid example.
What to do in such a situation — everyone decides for themselves. The brave (and rich) may want to try, the rational might wait until the rules and practice become clearer. I personally like clear and predictable rules, so even with an approved O-1, when they start hassling me at the consulate for no reason, I definitely don’t feel like taking part in this process yet 
— it somehow seems masochistic: prove that you, with money, education, and working businesses, deserve to come here to pay 30% taxes
8 Likes