Travel Ban vs. USCIS Pause: Proclamation Entry Bans vs. USCIS Adjudication Holds for High-Risk Countries

Entry into the United States

Immigrant Visa (IV) Entry Restrictions under Proclamations

Presidential Proclamations 10949 (June 2025) and 10962 (Dec. 2025) reinstitute and expanded nationality-based entry bans for certain “high-risk” countries. Under Proclamation 10949, nationals of 12 countries – including Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and others – face a full suspension of entry as either immigrants or nonimmigrants. In practical terms, U.S. consulates will not issue immigrant visas to these nationals, absent an exception or waiver, effectively barring them from moving to the United States permanently. Proclamation 10962 later expanded the ban to five additional countries (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan, Syria) and certain stateless Palestinians, bringing the total to 17 countries under full immigrant visa bans. It also converted two previously partially restricted states (Laos and Sierra Leone) to full bans.

Partial entry restrictions apply to a separate set of nations. For seven countries (e.g. Burundi, Cuba, Togo, Venezuela, among others), Proclamation 10949 imposed limited bans, often barring immigrant visas only or specific nonimmigrant categories, rather than a blanket ban. For example, the June 2025 proclamation suspended entry of nationals of these “partial-ban” countries as immigrants and on certain visitor or student visas (B-1/B-2 tourist/business visas and F, M, J visas). Other nonimmigrant categories from partial-ban countries (such as H-1B workers or O-1 artists) were not outright prohibited by the proclamation’s text, though they remain subject to heightened scrutiny. In December 2025, Proclamation 10962 continued partial restrictions for four of the original seven countries (Burundi, Cuba, Togo, Venezuela) and added 15 more countries to partial bans (including several African nations like Angola, Nigeria, and Senegal). These partial bans mean immigrant visas (green cards) and certain visas seen as higher-risk are suspended, while other temporary visas might still be issuable in theory.

Exceptions and waivers: Both proclamations enumerate specific exceptions, but the scope differs.

• Proclamation 10949 (June 2025) initially exempted lawful permanent residents (LPRs), individuals holding valid visas issued before the effective date, dual nationals traveling on a passport of a non-banned country, and certain categories such as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (e.g., IR-1, IR-2 visas for spouses and children). It also authorized case-by-case waivers for applicants whose entry would be in the U.S. national interest.
• However, Proclamation 10962 (December 2025) narrowed several of these exceptions. Notably, it removed the IR-1 and IR-2 visa exception for Iranian nationals, meaning spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens from Iran are no longer categorically exempt from the entry ban. The December proclamation also reviewed and, in some instances, rescinded prior exceptions for additional nationalities and categories based on updated risk assessments, though it did not uniformly eliminate the IR-1/IR-2 exemption across all countries. As a result, while some immediate relatives may still qualify for visa issuance under standing exceptions or waivers, Iranian nationals, regardless of familial relationship to a U.S. citizen, face a blanket suspension absent a discretionary waiver.

Nonimmigrant Visa (NIV) Entry Restrictions under Proclamations

For nonimmigrant visas, the impact of the proclamations depends on whether the country is under a full or partial ban. Nationals of the fully banned countries cannot be issued any category of U.S. visa – tourist, work, study, or otherwise – except in narrow circumstances. For example, an artist from Iran or a student from Yemen will be denied a visa as long as the full ban is in effect (unless they fall under an exempt category like an athlete traveling for a major event or they obtain a waiver). Nationals of partially banned countries face more nuanced restrictions. As noted, the June 2025 proclamation barred certain common NIV categories for those countries, chiefly B-1/B-2 visitor visas and F/M/J student or exchange visas. Other temporary visas such as H-1B (specialty workers), O-1 (extraordinary ability artists), P-1 (athletes & entertainers), or L-1 (intracompany transferees) were not explicitly listed as suspended for the partial-ban countries. In those cases, a consular post could issue, say, an O-1 visa to a Cuban or Nigerian applicant, since the proclamation’s text doesn’t categorically bar O or P visas for partial-ban nationalities. However, even when legally allowed, consular officers exercise heightened vetting for any applicant from a high-risk country. The proclamations emphasize that the listed countries suffer from deficient identity-management, terrorism concerns, or high overstay rates, which in practice leads to extensive security checks and visa delays even for categories not explicitly banned.

It is important to note that the entry ban regime operates independently of visa petition approvals. A person may have an approved petition (for example, an approved O-1 petition from USCIS), but visa issuance and entry can be refused at the consular stage due to the proclamation. The legal authority for these entry bans comes from the President’s powers under INA §212(f), as upheld by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii, allowing suspension of entry of classes of aliens deemed detrimental to U.S. interests. Thus, the proclamations create an eligibility bar at the point of entry/visa issuance, not a denial of the underlying status itself. An artist from a banned country might, for instance, be approved by USCIS for an O-1 classification, but unable to actually receive the visa or enter the U.S. until the ban is lifted or a waiver is granted.

In summary, the proclamation-based entry bans prevent many nationals of designated countries from obtaining visas or entering the U.S. at all. Immigrant visa applicants from banned countries are frozen out, and nonimmigrant travelers face a patchwork of prohibitions (with all categories banned for the “full ban” countries and select categories banned for the “partial” countries). Even for allowed cases, consular processing is fraught with mandatory security reviews and delays due to the national security justifications underpinning these proclamations. These entry restrictions are wholly external – they operate at the visa issuance stage and port of entry, implemented by the State Department and Customs and Border Protection.

USCIS Adjudication Holds for High-Risk Nationalities

Immigration Benefit Applications (Adjustment, Asylum, Naturalization, etc.)

Concurrently with the entry bans, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has instituted an internal adjudication hold policy targeting the same high-risk countries. On December 2, 2025, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192, ordering officers to “hold and review” all pending immigration benefit applications for individuals from the high-risk countries identified in PP 10949. This sweeping directive affects nearly every type of immigration filing inside the United States:

• Asylum applications (Form I-589) – Every asylum claim pending on or filed after Dec. 2, 2025, is paused, regardless of the applicant’s nationality. This amounts to a nationwide freeze on asylum adjudications for the time being. Interviews for asylum seekers have been canceled or not scheduled, and final decisions are on hold. Even asylum applicants from countries not on the travel ban list face this delay, as USCIS conducts a “comprehensive review” of security vetting in the asylum process.
• Adjustment of status to permanent residence (Form I-485) – If the applicant’s country of birth or citizenship is one of the 19 originally listed by the June travel ban, their green card case is put on hold prior to adjudication. This means, for example, an employment-based adjustment applicant born in Iran, Somalia, or Libya will not have their case approved (or even interviewed) until the hold is lifted. USCIS has made it explicit that interviews will not be waived for any affected adjustment cases – every applicant from a high-risk country must be interviewed in person, even if under normal practice their interview might have been waived. Additionally, cases already approved since January 20, 2021, for such individuals are flagged for “comprehensive re-review” – USCIS is re-examining prior approvals for any security concerns. This could include reopening granted adjustments, naturalizations, or other benefits for review and potential revocation if issues are found.
• Naturalization (Form N-400) – The memo did not explicitly list N-400 in the examples of affected forms, but USCIS has included naturalization in the definition of “benefit request” holds. In practice, many applicants from high-risk countries are experiencing delayed naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies. While not a formal freeze on N-400 adjudications, USCIS is likely subjecting these cases to the same heightened vetting. No interview can be waived for such cases, so all applicants from the designated countries will be interviewed (and possibly re-interviewed) with intensive security questioning. Even some naturalization cases already approved since 2021 may be reopened for “rescreening” before oath if the person originates from a listed country.
• Other immigration benefits: The hold extends to almost every USCIS filing by affected individuals. This includes petitions to remove conditions on residence (I-751) for conditional green card holders from those countries, refugee/asylee travel document requests (I-131), applications to replace green cards (I-90), and even the rarely used N-470 (preserve residence for naturalization). All such cases are frozen in the pipeline if the individual’s birth or citizenship is tied to a high-risk country. The USCIS memo expressly mandates that no final approvals be issued until a “comprehensive review” is completed, which involves enhanced security checks and possibly additional interviews. In essence, USCIS has stopped processing these cases “until Washington decides what to do next”, leaving thousands of applicants in limbo.

Non-Immigrant Status Applications (O-1, P-3, Extensions, Change of Status, etc.)

Importantly, USCIS’s hold also covers non-immigrant visa benefit requests filed domestically by or on behalf of nationals of the high-risk countries. While the Presidential proclamations govern entry and visa issuance abroad, USCIS handles status changes, extensions, and petitions from within the U.S.. The policy memo’s directive to place a hold on pending “benefit requests” for impacted nationals is very broad – USCIS has clarified that it encompasses “nearly everything people file with USCIS,” including I-129 petitions for work visas, I-539 applications to change or extend status, and associated work/travel permits.

Examples of affected non-immigrant filings include:

• O and P Visa Petitions (Form I-129): If a U.S. employer or agent files a petition for an O-1 extraordinary ability artist or a P-3 culturally unique performer who is a national of, say, Iran, Syria or Sudan, USCIS will accept the petition but effectively parks it in a hold status during the security review period. Even if all substantive criteria for the O-1/P-3 are met (extraordinary achievement, consultation letters, etc.), no approval will be forthcoming until vetting is complete and the hold lifted. Premium processing for such cases becomes moot, as the cases cannot be adjudicated within the usual 15-day timeframe. Similar holds apply to H-1B or L-1 petitions for nationals of these countries, and even to dependent applications (e.g. an H-4 spouse’s change of status request on Form I-539).
• Change of Status (COS) to F-1 or Other Visas (Form I-539): An individual born in one of the 19 countries who is inside the U.S. and applies to change to student status (F-1) or extend another nonimmigrant status will have that application put on hold. For instance, an Iranian citizen in the U.S. seeking to change from a visitor visa to an F-1 student will not receive a timely COS approval; USCIS will pause adjudication while performing extensive background checks. This can be problematic for status maintenance (someone’s current status might expire while awaiting a decision). USCIS has indicated that the “burden of processing delays” on applicants is a necessary trade-off for national security – effectively acknowledging these applicants may remain in limbo for an indeterminate period.
• Employment Authorization (Form I-765): Many applicants from the affected countries rely on work permits, such as asylum seekers or adjustment applicants waiting for green cards. The hold has a ripple effect on EAD processing, since if the underlying benefit is stalled, associated work authorization might be delayed too. USCIS can still accept and even issue initial EADs in some cases (for example, initial asylum applicant EADs based on a pending asylum for 180 days might still be processed, as the memo doesn’t freeze the filing of I-765). However, the December 2025 removal of the automatic EAD extension rule compounds the problem: if renewal EADs for these individuals are delayed under the hold, they may fall out of work authorization. In short, any request tied to an underlying benefit for a high-risk country national faces substantial delay.
• Humanitarian applications: Even certain humanitarian benefits (TPS, certain parole programs) filed by individuals from the listed countries could be subject to holds. The policy memo does exclude “screening” interviews like credible fear screenings from the freeze, so USCIS will still conduct initial asylum screening interviews. But final decisions are paused. The rationale given is that USCIS must “ensure that all aliens from high-risk countries of concern…do not pose threats” before granting benefits. To that end, officers have been directed to re-verify identities, check for ties to terrorism or extremist activity, and review cases with an eye for fraud or ineligibility.

Operational Impacts: Practically, this USCIS policy creates an operational bottleneck. Files for people from the designated countries are quite literally being set aside (“frozen”) pending further guidance. Cases that would normally be approved on their legal merits are in administrative cold storage. Applicants are seeing status updates like “Case is being held for review” for prolonged periods. USCIS is also requiring in-person interviews across the board – for example, employment-based adjustments for a national of Eritrea will no longer get interview waivers; instead, the applicant will be called in to a USCIS office so officers can question them about background, travel, and any security-related issues. Even if an interview had already been done (or even an oath ceremony scheduled, in a naturalization case), USCIS may call the person back for a re-interview under this policy. This is an unprecedented layering of security vetting on pending cases, and it has introduced major delays and uncertainty in the adjudications process.

Do the Two Regimes Interact?

At first glance, the proclamation-based entry bans and the USCIS adjudication holds target the same populations – but through different mechanisms – raising the question of whether they formally intersect. In legal terms, the two regimes do not directly interact. A Presidential Proclamation under INA §212(f) has the force of rendering certain foreign nationals inadmissible to the United States, but it does not automatically bar USCIS from processing applications for benefits. USCIS could theoretically continue to approve an adjustment of status or work visa petition for someone even if that person would be refused entry under a proclamation (the person just could not actually enter the U.S. on a visa). In fact, when the June 2025 travel ban was announced, immigration advisors noted that “the proclamation is not expected to impact change or extension of status filings submitted to USCIS.” This underscores that, as a matter of law, the travel ban restricts entry at the border or visa issuance, while domestic benefit eligibility remains governed by the INA criteria in the absence of a specific legislative bar.

However, by late 2025 the administration chose to align USCIS operations with the entry ban policy, effectively creating a parallel system of holds. This was a policy choice, not a legal mandate from the proclamations. USCIS Director Joseph Edlow, for example, emphasized that the agency would use its “broad discretionary authorities” to consider negative country-specific factors in adjudications for nationals of the high-risk countries[1]. In other words, because the President identified certain countries for entry restrictions, USCIS took that as a cue to ramp up internal vetting of the same group. The two regimes thus run on separate tracks: one stops people at the doorway to the U.S., the other slows or re-examines their applications within the U.S.. There is no statutory or regulatory provision causing a case to be auto-denied by USCIS due to a 212(f) ban, nor does a proclamation instruct USCIS to halt processing. It is the administration’s policy decision – via the PM-602-0192 memo – that created an interaction by reference. (Notably, the USCIS memo explicitly lists the 19 countries from PP 10949 as the trigger list, so USCIS consciously tethered its hold to the proclamation’s country list.)

In sum, there is no direct legal interplay where one regime compels action by the other. The travel ban does not legally “freeze” a green card application, and the USCIS hold does not adjudicate whether someone may enter the country. They operate independently: a person could be cleared by USCIS for a benefit but still barred from entry, or conversely, theoretically exempt from the travel ban but still have their case stuck in the USCIS hold. The coordination we see is policy-driven synchronization, not an inherent legal interaction.

Why the Two Regimes Do Not Interact

The reason these two regimes remain separate comes down to differences in authority, purpose, and process:

• Different Legal Authority: Presidential entry bans are based on the President’s foreign-affairs and national security powers (INA 212(f) and related authorities) to deny entry to groups of foreign nationals. In contrast, USCIS adjudications are governed by the statutes and regulations that confer eligibility for immigration benefits (e.g. family reunification, employment visas, asylum under INA §208). There is no law that says if the President bans entry of X nationality, USCIS must deny their asylum or revoke their green card. Absent a specific legislative change, USCIS cannot deny an immigration benefit solely on nationality – that would violate the INA’s nondiscrimination clause in issuance of immigrant visas (INA 202(a)(1)(A)) were it a final denial. Thus, the USCIS hold is framed not as a denial, but a pause for “case-by-case review,” operating within existing authority (such as security background check authority and discretion in scheduling). The two regimes inhabit different legal spheres, which is why they don’t formally trigger one another.
• Different Agencies and Objectives: Entry bans are enforced by the State Department (visa issuance) and CBP (inspection at entry). Their goal is to keep certain people out of the country to mitigate security risks or pressure foreign governments. USCIS, on the other hand, is an adjudicative body for benefits of people often already inside the United States (or petitioning to come). Its goal under the hold memo is to ensure thorough vetting and prevent grants of immigration status to those who might pose a threat[1]. The proclamation doesn’t tell USCIS how to adjudicate an I-485 or an N-400; USCIS took initiative to support the President’s policy, but operationally they can act (or reverse course) independently. Indeed, USCIS could tomorrow lift its hold by agency decision even if the travel bans remain – and vice versa, a President could rescind the proclamations while USCIS might still choose to screen certain cases heavily. There is no one-to-one dependency.
• Entry vs. Domestic Presence: The proclamation restrictions apply at the point of entry – a binary yes/no of who may enter or be admitted to the U.S. The USCIS holds affect individuals regardless of entry ban applicability, focusing on anyone from the listed countries who is in the pipeline for a benefit. Notably, some people covered by the USCIS hold are already in the U.S. in lawful status or even U.S. citizens (naturalization applicants). Those individuals are not impacted by the entry ban (since they’re not seeking entry), illustrating the lack of direct interaction. Conversely, someone who is abroad and barred by the proclamation might not even get to file anything with USCIS (except a petition via a sponsor). The timing and context differ – one regime is preventive at the border, the other is investigative in nature inside the country. USCIS holds do not make someone inadmissible; they just delay the benefit decision.
• No Cross-Effect on Eligibility: Being subject to a 212(f) travel ban does not render an individual legally ineligible for asylum or adjustment of status if they are otherwise qualified. Likewise, a USCIS decision to hold a case does not confer any waiver or exception to the entry ban. Each regime has its own criteria. For example, a dual-national Iranian–Canadian might be exempt from the entry ban by using a Canadian passport, but if applying for adjustment of status with USCIS, that same person’s case will be held because their country of birth (Iran) is on the high-risk list. The systems do not “talk” to each other to reconcile this – one could be cleared while the other is blocked. This underscores that the regimes do not integrate; they function in parallel, aimed at the shared policy goal of heightened security screening, but not formally linked in execution.

In short, the two regimes do not interact because they are distinct policy tools: one is an entry bar wielded by the President, the other an adjudication slow-down administered by an agency. They were conceived separately – the travel ban revived the “Trump Travel Ban” approach from 2017 (upheld by the Supreme Court), whereas the USCIS hold is reminiscent of internal programs like “CARRP” (Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program) or security advisory opinions, which flag and delay cases without an outright statute-based refusal. They serve complementary but separate roles. The lack of interaction means an individual navigating the process must independently clear two hurdles: the travel ban (or get a waiver) to enter, and the USCIS scrutiny to obtain or keep status. Each must be addressed on its own terms.

Practical Consequences for Affected Individuals

Citizens of High-Risk Countries

For nationals of the designated high-risk countries, the practical consequences are severe: – Inability to Enter the U.S. (Travel Ban) – Unless they qualify for an exception or are granted a waiver, citizens of countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, etc., cannot obtain visas to come to the U.S. at all. This means suspended family reunification, blocked job opportunities, and inability to tour or perform in the U.S. for the ban’s duration. Even for partially banned countries (e.g. Cuba or Venezuela), they find immigrant visas unavailable and tourist or student travel largely halted. Those already holding valid visas (issued before the ban) can use them, but new visas are extremely difficult to get. Essentially, a cloud of inadmissibility hangs over millions of people from these countries. – Frozen Applications and Extended Delays (USCIS Hold) – For those already in the U.S. (or those who manage to get here through an exception), applications for immigration benefits grind to a halt. A Syrian Ph.D. student applying for a green card through marriage, for instance, will now wait potentially much longer than usual for approval; their file is marked for extra security review. Work permit renewals could be delayed, risking lapses in employment authorization. Asylum seekers from all countries are stuck in limbo – and over 1.4 million asylum applications were pending as of the memo’s issuance[2], now on indefinite hold. Applicants from the 19 countries are seeing naturalization stalled, green card interviews delayed or reopened, and even routine requests like travel permits deferred. The emotional and financial toll is significant: lives put on hold, job loss if EADs expire, families unsure when their status will be secure. USCIS has acknowledged “the burden of processing delays that will fall on some applicants” but asserts it is “necessary and appropriate… when weighed against…national security.”. In practical terms, this means affected individuals must brace for prolonged uncertainty in every interaction with the U.S. immigration system. Many have responded by seeking legal help, considering litigation for unreasonable delays, or pausing plans that depend on U.S. immigration benefits.

• Mandatory Interviews and Scrutiny – High-risk country nationals will uniformly face in-person interviews for benefits that previously might not have required one (e.g. employment-based green cards, certain visa extensions). At these interviews, they can expect detailed questioning about their background, travels, associates, and more, as officers look for any security red flags. No expedites are being granted in these cases barring true emergencies, as national security holds essentially override the usual service delivery timelines. The overall experience for these individuals is a much more intrusive and prolonged process than for applicants from non-listed countries.

Dual Nationals (e.g. Canadian–Iranian)

Dual nationals face a unique scenario where the two regimes can diverge. For example, consider a person with citizenship in both Iran (listed) and Canada (not listed): – Travel Ban Implications: If this individual travels on their Canadian passport, they are explicitly exempt from the proclamation’s entry ban. The June 2025 proclamation (and its expansion) do not apply to dual nationals if they present a passport of a non-restricted country. In practical effect, a Canadian-Iranian could go to a U.S. consulate as a Canadian citizen and, from the State Department’s perspective, the travel ban would not bar visa issuance. (Of course, heightened scrutiny might still occur due to place of birth or name, but there isn’t a formal bar.) Dual citizens of a banned country and a non-banned country thus have a potential workaround for entry: use the unaffected nationality. This was intended to mitigate diplomatic tensions with allied countries and avoid punishing individuals who have a second nationality from a trusted country. – USCIS Hold Implications: USCIS does not exempt dual citizens if one of their nationalities or birthplaces is on the high-risk list. The policy memo triggers on anyone who “lists one of the 19 high-risk countries as their country of birth or country of citizenship”. A Canadian-Iranian adjusting status or applying for naturalization inside the U.S. will have to list Iran as their place of birth (and likely list both citizenships). That alone is enough for the USCIS hold to apply. In other words, USCIS will treat them as an Iranian national for vetting purposes even if they are also a Canadian citizen. The dual national might thus find that, despite entering the U.S. freely on a Canadian passport and even being exempt at the border, once they seek a benefit from USCIS, their file is lumped in with the “high-risk” cases. They will face the same interview requirements, security checks, and processing freeze as any sole Iranian national.

This discrepancy can be stark: dual nationals may feel a false sense of security if they sidestep the travel ban, only to hit a wall with USCIS. For instance, a UK-Yemeni dual citizen could travel to the U.S. on their UK passport without issue (since UK isn’t banned), but if they later file an employment-based green card application, USCIS will flag the case because their country of birth is Yemen – leading to hold and review. The two regimes’ divergence means dual nationals must strategize. Some may choose to omit a second nationality in visa applications (although legally one should disclose all nationalities when asked). Ultimately, being a dual national of a listed country provides no reprieve from the domestic adjudication gauntlet. It only aids in the entry phase. This is a clear example of how the regimes operate on different criteria – nationality for the ban vs. nationality or birth for USCIS.

Individuals Born in a High-Risk Country but Citizens of a Non-Listed Country

This category includes people who have no current nationality of the listed country but were born there. For example, an individual born in Afghanistan who later became a citizen of Germany, or someone born in Sudan now naturalized in the UK. Their experiences illustrate how country of birth alone can trigger consequences: – Entry Bans: Most travel bans are defined by citizenship/nationality, not simply country of birth. In the June and Dec 2025 proclamations, the language targets “nationals of” the listed countries. Therefore, if our hypothetical person is only a citizen of Germany and not legally a national of Afghanistan anymore, the U.S. government would not consider them a national of a banned country. They could apply for a U.S. visa on their German passport and should not be denied under the proclamation (and, as noted, dual citizens using the non-banned passport are exempt by the proclamation’s terms). In practice, consular officers may still ask about place of birth and may run additional security checks (for instance, many security advisory opinions are triggered by birth in certain regions). But there is no outright entry bar. Such individuals from a third-country perspective can generally travel to the U.S. normally, albeit with possible extra screening on arrival by CBP if their birth country raises flags. – USCIS Holds: By contrast, USCIS casts a wider net by including country of birth as a trigger for the adjudication hold. A German citizen born in Afghanistan, if applying for a U.S. immigration benefit, will find themselves treated as an “alien from a high-risk country” because their biographical form (Form I-485, N-400, etc.) will show Afghanistan as place of birth. USCIS has specifically said this policy “applies to aliens who list one of the 19 high-risk countries as their Country of Birth or Country of Citizenship.”. This means even if the person has long since severed legal ties to their birth country, the mere fact of birth location triggers the security hold. It’s essentially national origin-based vetting, if not nationality. The practical effect is that an individual who might never have even returned to their birth country, or who left as an infant, is still swept into the rigorous screening process. Such a person could be surprised to learn their case is delayed – for example, a French citizen born in Libya applying for a U.S. artist visa extension might wonder why a routine extension is taking so long, not realizing the birth country flag raised an invisible alarm.

For these individuals, the discrepancy feels like whiplash. They enjoy full rights and travel freedoms as citizens of a non-listed country for most purposes, but when it comes to U.S. immigration benefits, their country of birth resurrects hurdles. Some may attempt to omit or “Anglicize” birthplaces on forms (which is not advisable, as misrepresentation has its own dire consequences). In practice, one’s country of birth is a fixed identifier that U.S. immigration forms always capture, and there is no mechanism to “clear” oneself of that designation. The result is that citizens of allied countries born in places like Sudan or Syria face a two-tier system: no ban on entry, but delays and extra vetting on benefits. This has raised concerns of unfairness and even potential legal challenges on grounds of equal protection or discrimination, though USCIS defends it as a security necessity within its discretionary authority.

Impacts on O, P, EB-1 and NIW Applicants (Artists & Extraordinary Individuals)

Creative professionals and individuals of extraordinary ability – such as artists, musicians, athletes, researchers, and entrepreneurs – are often beneficiaries of O visas, P visas, EB-1 immigrant visas, or EB-2 National Interest Waivers (NIW). The current dual-regime system affects them in distinct ways depending on whether they are pursuing consular processing abroad or applying with USCIS domestically, and depending on their nationality versus birth country:

Consular Processing vs. USCIS Filing for Extraordinary Ability Cases

• Consular Processing (Abroad Applicants): Many O-1 or P visa applicants (as well as EB-1/NIW beneficiaries who opt for consular immigrant visa processing) must engage with the U.S. consulate in their home country. Under the proclamation entry bans, if such an individual is a national of a banned country, no visa can be issued notwithstanding their accomplishments. For example, a world-renowned Sudanese musician approved for an O-1 visa petition will be unable to actually get the O-1 visa stamp at a U.S. embassy because Sudan is under a full entry ban. The only paths forward would be securing a waiver (demonstrating that their entry is in the U.S. national interest and that denying entry would cause undue hardship and not advance the ban’s objectives) – a challenging and uncertain process – or delaying the tour/project until the ban is lifted. Even for partial-ban countries, many O/P categories fall under work visas not explicitly banned; however, consulates in those countries (say an artist from Cuba or Nigeria) may still be effectively closed to processing such visas, or extremely slow, given the additional vetting. Consular officers have wide discretion to defer or refuse under INA 221(g) for “administrative processing,” which in high-risk country cases can drag on for months as security clearances are run. Immigrant visas in EB-1 (Extraordinary Ability, Outstanding Professor/Researcher) or NIW (National Interest Waiver EB-2) are even more directly hit – if the person is from a banned country, the consulate simply will not issue the immigrant visa. For instance, an Iranian scientist with an approved NIW petition cannot receive a green card via the consulate in Abu Dhabi or Ankara as long as Iranians are barred; the case would be effectively dormant unless a waiver is granted. Some affected extraordinary individuals have sought third-country processing (applying at a U.S. consulate in a different country) but that does not circumvent the ban – the nationality is what triggers the ban, not the location of the consulate. In short, for consular cases, the entry ban is an absolute gatekeeper: no matter how meritorious the applicant, the visa cannot be issued if the proclamation applies. This has a chilling effect on international cultural exchange and scientific collaboration – orchestras cannot bring in star performers from banned countries, tech companies cannot onboard brilliant engineers from those regions, unless extraordinary waivers are obtained.
• USCIS Domestic Filings (Applicants already in the U.S.): Some O-1, P, EB-1, or NIW applicants are already in the United States (perhaps in another status) and can apply for a change/extension of status or adjustment of status through USCIS. For these individuals, the presidential entry ban does not directly stop the USCIS from approving a petition or application, since they are not asking to enter – they are extending or changing status internally. In fact, as noted earlier, the travel ban itself “does not impact change or extension of status filings” per se. Thus, an extraordinary ability filmmaker from Syria who is in the U.S. might file an I-485 adjustment (through EB-1A self-petition) with USCIS. USCIS has the authority to eventually approve that green card because a 212(f) ban is legally about entry, not about eligibility for permanent residence. However, the USCIS PM-602-0192 hold will come into play. That Syrian’s adjustment will be placed on hold and undergo extensive review. The approval will not be quick; it might not come at all until the hold is lifted by USCIS leadership. During the hold, the applicant might get work and travel authorization (since initial EAD/AP filings can still be accepted), but even those could be delayed. Similarly, an O-1 extension for a high-risk country artist in the U.S. will be filed with USCIS and could theoretically be approved (since they’re extending stay, not seeking a visa abroad) – but under current policy, USCIS has stopped adjudicating those petitions temporarily. For a working artist, this is extremely disruptive: if their O-1 extension remains pending beyond the 240-day automatic extension window, they may have to stop working, cancelling performances or productions. Essentially, for in-country applicants, the travel ban doesn’t directly hurt them, but the USCIS security hold does. Their status in the U.S. remains in tentative limbo.

One nuance: if USCIS does ultimately approve an in-country application (say, grants adjustment of status to a Yemeni EB-1 applicant despite the hold at some future point), that person becomes a lawful permanent resident and is no longer subject to the entry ban (the ban exempted LPRs). But reaching that point is uncertain under the freeze. In effect, the “bottleneck” shifted – rather than being blocked at the consulate, the individual is blocked in the USCIS queue.

Strategically, some affected extraordinary applicants are weighing whether to remain in the U.S. and adjust status here (facing the USCIS hold but at least being physically present), as opposed to consular process abroad (where the ban would flatly prevent visa issuance). Generally, staying in the U.S. and using AOS is preferable under these conditions, because at least the case isn’t denied – it’s pending, and the person might have interim benefits like an EAD. Consular processing for a banned-country national could result in a visa refusal that can only sit at the consulate, with no legal avenue to force issuance except waiting for a waiver or ban lift. That said, even pending AOS applicants in the U.S. from these countries have to be cautious about travel (advanced parole might be harder to get or risky to use given changing rules).

Nationality vs. Country-of-Birth Risk Triggers in Adjudications

For O, P, EB-1, NIW and similar applicants, understanding how nationality versus birth country triggers security measures is crucial: – Risk Tied to Nationality (Entry Bans): If an artist or researcher holds citizenship from a banned country, they face the entry ban as discussed. But if they hold a different citizenship, the ban might not apply. For example, an award-winning filmmaker born in Syria who later became a citizen of France would not be barred by the proclamation when applying for a visa as a French national. Here, nationality is the key for the entry ban. That filmmaker could, on paper, get an O-1 visa stamp as a French citizen (though security clearances might still delay issuance due to Syrian birthplace). Many talented individuals have second nationalities or residency in third countries, which can help them circumvent the outright ban on entry by relying on their non-listed nationality. We have seen instances of creative professionals using alternative passports to travel for international festivals or work despite their birthplace being in a high-risk country. The proclamations make no mention of place of birth; they operate on citizenship, which is binary and legally defined.

• Risk Tied to Country of Birth (USCIS Holds): USCIS, conversely, is not solely looking at current citizenship. As noted, the hold policy explicitly flags cases by either listed country of citizenship or birth. In the context of extraordinary ability petitions, this means if the beneficiary was born in a high-risk country, the case is treated as high-risk even if their passport is from elsewhere. A real-world example: A celebrated pianist born in Cuba (a partial-ban country) emigrated and obtained Spanish citizenship. If a U.S. organization petitions for them on a P-1 visa, the petition to USCIS will show Cuba as place of birth and Spain as nationality. USCIS will still include that petition in the hold because Cuba is on the list. Similarly, if that pianist were applying for an EB-1 green card, their I-485 would be held up for the same reason. This birthplace trigger is an internal policy choice aimed at capturing those who might have ties to the high-risk country’s milieu even if they’ve changed nationality. The assumption is that country of birth can indicate potential risk factors in upbringing, records, or identity that warrant review. But it also casts a wide net, including people who left as infants or who may have opposed the regime of that country.

For practitioners and applicants, the implication is clear: one cannot entirely escape USCIS’s net simply by changing citizenship. Risk profiling in adjudications is more nuanced and arguably broader than in the entry context. Nationality is a legal status that can change; birth country is an immutable historical fact. USCIS is leveraging the latter. Therefore, in preparing cases for artists or extraordinary talent from these backgrounds, attorneys now must emphasize evidence of identity reliability and address any issues that could arise from the country of birth (for instance, explaining lack of certain documents due to a failed state, etc., which otherwise could slow security checks). We also see that identity re-verification is a key part of the USCIS hold: officers are directed to ensure the person is who they claim, especially if coming from countries with weak document systems[3]. For example, an EB-1 applicant born in Eritrea (which lacks reliable civil documents) might be asked for additional proof of identity or background beyond the norm.

In summary, nationality determines the ability to get past the front door (consular/border), while country of birth can shadow a person throughout the interior immigration process. The two together create a layered risk assessment: A dual national might avoid the ban using a safe passport but cannot avoid the homeland security scrutiny of their birth origin once under USCIS review.

Outlook and Conclusion: Destabilizing Routine Adjudications

The bifurcated regimes of entry bans and USCIS holds have introduced an extraordinary level of uncertainty and delay into what used to be routine immigration processes, especially for artists, academics, and creative professionals from affected regions. Traditionally, once an individual of exceptional talent obtained a U.S. visa petition approval or met the criteria for a green card, the remaining steps were largely procedural. Now, those steps are fraught with policy-driven obstacles:

• Operational Destabilization: The combination of blanket entry bans and indefinite adjudication freezes has disrupted planning for tours, exhibitions, research collaborations, and performances. A theater company cannot confidently schedule a tour involving a Syrian actor if that actor’s O-1 or P-3 visa is essentially barred or their extension stuck at USCIS. Even U.S.-based talents from these countries face anxiety that their status (or even already-approved citizenship) could be revisited and possibly revoked upon “re-review”. The USCIS memo explicitly contemplates issuing Notices of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) or referring cases to ICE if new derogatory info arises. This means past approvals are not final – a reality that shakes the usual confidence immigrant artists and workers have in their status stability.
• Deterrence of Talent: Creative professionals are often internationally mobile. The U.S., long a magnet for top talent in arts and sciences, risks deterring qualified individuals from even attempting U.S. opportunities. If an award-winning filmmaker from one of the listed countries hears how colleagues have been stuck for years in immigration limbo or outright banned, they may choose to work in Europe or elsewhere instead. For those already here, the additional hurdles (like mandatory interviews and the inability to travel abroad due to fear of not getting a visa to return) are causing some to reconsider U.S. plans. This brain drain or talent diversion is a subtle but real consequence of these policies.
• Administrative Strain and Litigation: The sheer volume of cases affected – millions of asylum cases, and thousands of benefit applications from 19+ countries – means USCIS has a growing backlog that it cannot adjudicate until policy changes. This freeze may prompt affected individuals to file lawsuits (indeed, as of mid-December 2025, immigration attorneys are preparing litigation arguing that indefinite holds without action constitute unreasonable delay or violate the Administrative Procedure Act). Courts may eventually order USCIS to process certain cases if delays become egregious, which would force a reckoning on the policy. Similarly, the travel ban proclamations could face legal challenges (as the Hawaii case showed, courts give deference but shifts in factual context or scope – like now targeting nearly 39 countries by December 2025 – might invite renewed judicial scrutiny). The outcome of such challenges will determine how long these regimes remain in place.
• Policy Reversals and Future Changes: Looking forward, a change in administration or policy priorities could rescind these bans and holds. Executive Order 14161 and the subsequent proclamations were hallmark policies of the Trump administration’s return, and a future President could revoke them on day one, as happened in 2021 for the prior travel ban. USCIS, too, could immediately lift the hold via a new memo – the Dec. 2, 2025 memo itself states the hold remains until the Director issues a new memo lifting it. However, even with a rescission, the aftershocks will be felt: cases will need to be triaged and adjudicated after long delays; security check backlogs will have to be cleared; individuals might have aged out or lost opportunities in the interim. Rebuilding trust with immigrant communities and international partners would also be on the agenda, as the perception of U.S. immigration reliability has been damaged.

In conclusion, the two parallel systems – one locking the front door, the other auditing everything inside – have created a gauntlet for nationals of certain countries that goes far beyond the ordinary hurdles of immigration law. For immigration attorneys, it requires dual strategizing: seeking waivers or alternatives to overcome entry bars, while also pressing USCIS (or the courts) to move cases along despite security holds. For affected individuals, it has generated a sense that their immigration journeys are subject to forces outside the normal rule-of-law framework, instead driven by geopolitical and security anxieties. A Yemeni painter or an Iranian software engineer now experiences immigration not as a clear statutory path, but as a nebulous, extended vetting process with no definite timeline. This fundamentally destabilizes the routine expectation that if you qualify for a visa or green card, you will receive it in due course.

While national security and public safety are paramount, the challenge ahead will be finding a more sustainable balance – one that addresses legitimate security concerns without freezing the lives of thousands indefinitely. The current approach, as anchored in Presidential Proclamations 10949/10962 and USCIS PM-602-0192, has drawn criticism as “collective punishment by press release” for casting an overly-broad net. Artists and creative professionals, in particular, thrive on mobility and timely opportunities; uncertainty in U.S. immigration processes may lead them to avoid U.S. engagements, to the detriment of American cultural and scientific fields. Stakeholders in policy circles will need to monitor the implementation and fallout. If security improvements (e.g., better inter-agency vetting protocols) can be achieved, perhaps these extreme measures can be tapered. Until then, affected individuals and their counsel must navigate a minefield of restrictions – where entry bans and adjudication holds operate concurrently to frustrate even the most meritorious of immigration cases. The hope is that through advocacy, careful case management, and possible legal intervention, the balance between security and fairness can eventually be recalibrated, restoring a degree of predictability for those who have much to contribute to the United States.