US District Judge Edward J. Davila has directed the Department of State to continue processing specified fiscal year 2026 Diversity Visa applications for an additional 10 days after the close of the fiscal year, finding that the agency’s delayed compliance with an earlier court order materially reduced applicants’ chances of receiving visas. The order was filed on Wednesday in Medani v. Trump in the Northern District of California.
Under US law, Diversity Visa eligibility normally ends at midnight on 30 September, the last day of the fiscal year, and unused visa numbers cannot be carried forward. Judge Davila’s order creates a narrow, 10-day window for reconsidering certain refused applications and resuming ordinary adjudication, to the extent practicable and in good faith.
In his ruling, Judge Davila directed the State Department, “to the extent practicable and in good faith,” to take all reasonable steps during the additional 10-day period to reconsider fiscal year 2026 applications that were refused solely under two suspended visa policies: the Diversity Visa pause and the 75-country pause. The department must also resume ordinary adjudication of pending applications.
The judge said the government’s delayed compliance with his earlier 28 August order, which vacated the visa pauses, meant many applicants lost weeks of processing time that should have been available before the 30 September deadline. He described the extension as a remedy for that delay, not a blanket extension of the statutory deadline.
DV-2026 pause and court interventionThe Trump administration imposed a pause on Diversity Visa processing in December 2025, effectively halting interviews and visa issuance for DV-2026 selectees. A separate policy paused visas for applicants from 75 countries, further restricting eligibility.
On 28 August 2026, Judge Davila issued a preliminary injunction in Medani v. Trump, temporarily vacating the Diversity Visa pause and ordering the State Department to resume ordinary adjudication of pending cases before the end of the fiscal year. The State Department later issued a cable on 10 September instructing embassies and consulates to immediately resume processing and issuance of immigrant and Diversity Visas.
However, plaintiffs argued that the department’s slow implementation meant many applicants still faced refusals or delays that could not be remedied before 30 September. On 29 September, lawyers asked Judge Davila to hold the government in contempt and extend the deadline to allow processing of up to 40,000 unused diversity visas.
The 10-day extension does not create a general grace period for all DV-2026 applicants. It applies specifically to applications refused solely under the Diversity Visa pause or the 75-country pause, pending applications that were not adjudicated due to the department’s delayed compliance with the 28 August order.
During the extension, consulates are expected to make reasonable, good-faith efforts to reconsider these cases and resume ordinary processing. The order does not guarantee visa issuance, remove ordinary eligibility checks or override the statutory requirement that visas be issued within the fiscal year.
Legal constraintsFederal law limits the issuance of visas from a given DV lottery edition strictly to the end of the fiscal year, which is 30 September. Judge Davila explicitly noted in his 10 September order that appellate jurisprudence limits a district court’s authority to order processing of DV applications after the end of the fiscal year, even if the delay resulted from unlawful government action.
The 10-day window is therefore framed as a remedial measure to offset the government’s delay, rather than a formal extension of the statutory deadline. The State Department must still comply with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which does not allow unused DV visa numbers to be carried forward to the next fiscal year.
Reaction from applicants and lawyers : Immigration lawyers representing DV-2026 selectees welcomed the order but cautioned that it does not guarantee visas for all affected applicants. Many said they had clients who were ready for interviews but never received appointments before 30 September due to the earlier pause.
Some plaintiffs had asked the judge to hold the government in civil contempt, arguing that the State Department’s slow compliance amounted to defiance of the court’s 28 August order. The judge did not issue a contempt ruling in this order but signalled disappointment with the government’s pace of implementation.
The State Department has not issued a detailed public statement on the 10-day extension. Internally, consular sections are expected to receive guidance on how to implement the order, including which cases qualify for reconsideration and how to document efforts made in good faith.
The ruling highlights the tension between statutory deadlines and judicial remedies when government actions delay visa processing. It also underscores the high stakes for DV-2026 selectees, many of whom have made life plans based on the expectation of receiving a visa within the fiscal year.
