u/Cold_Team_2894 — reddlx

I passed my immigrant visa interview at a U.S. consulate earlier this year (EB-2 NIW, employment-based) and I'm currently in administrative processing limbo due to the 75-country immigrant visa pause that went into effect on January 21, 2026. I've been closely following CLINIC v. Rubio (SDNY, 1:26-cv-00858) and I'm cautiously optimistic about the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. However, I have a concern I'd like to hear the community's thoughts on. Looking at how Doe v. Trump and Saghafi v. Edlow played out regarding the 39-country travel ban, I noticed that judicial relief in both cases was granted specifically and narrowly to the named plaintiffs or those who submitted declarations — not to the broader affected population. Judge Kobick's April 30 order in Doe v. Trump makes this explicit: injunctive relief was granted to the 22 plaintiffs who submitted declarations, with an open question about extending it to the remaining plaintiffs by May 11. My concern: even though CLINIC v. Rubio is not structured as a class action, and even though the plaintiffs' legal team has stated that a victory would lift the ban for all 75 countries universally — could a judge still choose to limit the scope of relief to named plaintiffs only? And if so, would it make sense for those of us who are directly affected (approved petitions, completed interviews, visa pending issuance) to explore joining the case or filing a parallel action to ensure we're covered? I understand CLINIC has stated they are not adding plaintiffs at this time. But given the pattern we're seeing in the 39-country cases, I'm wondering: Is this concern legally valid or am I misreading how APA-based vacatur works vs. injunctive relief? Are there immigration attorneys actively building plaintiff lists for parallel actions targeting the 75-country pause specifically? Would appreciate any insight from attorneys or others tracking this litigation closely.