After Lawsuit, U.S. State Department Corrects Diversity Visa Error for UK Entrants Wrongfully Excluded from DV-2025 Lottery

The U.S. Department of State has announced an update to the Diversity Visa (DV) Program for 2025, revealing that a technical error had previously resulted in incorrect selection status results for some entrants from Great Britain (United Kingdom) and its dependent areas. This update comes after a lawsuit was filed on behalf of a British citizen, alleging that no British citizens were selected for the DV-2025 or DV-2026 lotteries, despite being eligible.

In its official update, the Department of State is urging all DV-2025 entrants from the UK and its dependent territories to re-check their status using their unique confirmation numbers on the Entrant Status Check website. The dependent areas affected by this correction include Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, the Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, St. Helena, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. 

The announcement represents a significant development for those who may have been wrongfully excluded from the lottery. Diversity Visa expert Simon Paul expressed his pleasure at the news, stating, “I am delighted to hear the news that the error has been corrected, and we know have UK winners for DV2025. I will wait to hear more from the government to show that DV2026 has also been corrected, and I expect they will do all in their power to assist winners in processing their cases within the remaining time.”

However, a major challenge remains: the fast-approaching end of the fiscal year. As pointed out by attorney Curtis Morrison, who represents the plaintiff in the lawsuit, the timeline for successful applicants is extremely tight. The Department of State reminds selectees that their eligibility to apply for a visa extends only until September 30, and that visas could become unavailable before then if the allocated numbers are exhausted.

Morrison commented on the situation, saying, “While I have many critics about the State Department, this is one of the times where they’ve recognized we are right, and they appear to be taking proactive steps to mitigate their error. With only 53 days left in the fiscal year though, it may be tough for them to let entrants know they have been selected (unless State reaches out to them proactively), and usher them through the remaining steps in of the process before the DV-2025 program ends on September 30. We’ll have to see what they do.”

The legal action that preceded this update, known as Paul v. Trump (Case number: 1:25-cv-01885), was filed on behalf of a British citizen. The lawsuit, overseen by Judge Carl J. Nichols, alleged that all British entrants for both the DV-2025 and DV-2026 lotteries were arbitrarily and unlawfully omitted. When the lawsuit was initially filed, Morrison criticized the government’s handling of the program, stating, “Critics of immigration often say come the legal way. Yet when tasked with implementing lawful immigration paths, the Trump administration runs them about as competently as Trump himself ran casinos.”

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants’ decision to omit the selection of Great Britain entrants for the DV lottery in FY-2025 and FY-2026 was “arbitrary and capricious”. According to the lawsuit, natives of the United Kingdom were eligible for the first time to enter the DV lottery for FY-2025 and FY-2026 because fewer than 50,000 UK natives had immigrated to the United States in the preceding five years.

The lawsuit also states that the U.S. Embassy in London’s website provided information for entrants for both of those fiscal years. The lawsuit claims that despite the eligibility of Great Britain natives, the State Department excluded them from the selection process. It notes that the Monthly Visa Statistics for FY-2025 have confirmed no issuances in the DV category to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

The lawsuit further alleges that the defendants’ actions were unlawful and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with a petition for a writ of mandamus. The claims are brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing the agency’s actions were unlawful and withheld. The suit also claims that the defendants’ actions are ultra vires, or beyond the scope of their legal authority, because they are in contravention of the priorities set forth by Congress.