On December 1–2, 2025 the U.S. government announced a broad review and temporary pause of immigration processing tied to nationals from a group of countries described as “high risk.” Days later Ghana’s Foreign Affairs Ministry said the country is not part of that review, following discussions with the U.S. mission in Accra. The clarification preserves the ability of Ghanaian citizens to continue filing for green cards and other immigration processes without the new, country-specific vetting that other nations face.
This article explains the policy, lists who is affected, shows how Ghana secured its exemption, and examines what the pause means in human terms for Sierra Leone and other countries on the list. It closes with practical steps governments and communities can take to reduce harm.
U.S. authorities announced a pause and security review of immigration procedures for nationals from a set of countries that were identified under an earlier travel restriction and subsequent policy memoranda. That review can include re-screening existing cases, additional interviews, suspension of new filings, and delays for visa and naturalization appointments. Officials say the measure is a security safeguard. Critics say it casts wide nets that punish lawful migrants and asylum seekers for incidents beyond their control.
Reporting by multiple outlets has identified roughly 19 countries targeted for review or suspension. The list includes nations that were already part of prior U.S. restrictions and a number of African states. Public reporting names Afghanistan, Myanmar (Burma), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela among those affected. Exact application varies by category: some countries face full suspensions, others face partial restrictions or tightened vetting.
Ghana’s Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa held a briefing with the acting U.S. ambassador and reported that Ghana is not included in the new green card review and temporary suspension. Ghanaian officials framed the clarification as the result of direct diplomatic contact that secured written assurances for Ghanaian nationals. That outcome matters for reasonable reasons: it prevents sudden interruptions to pending family-based transfers, employment-based immigration, and diversity visa procedures that many Ghanaian applicants rely on.
Two practical points explain the difference an exemption makes. First, applicants from exempted countries can generally expect standard processing timelines and fewer unexpected interviews. Second, consular operations and embassy scheduling remain steadier, which reduces costs and emotional strain for applicants and their families
Read Also: Sierra Leone’s Ishmael Brima Koroma Honoured with Top Fashion Award
Sierra Leone appears on many of the media lists of affected countries. For Sierra Leoneans this means pending green card applications, naturalization steps and other immigration interviews may be delayed or flagged for re-review. The review can extend into cases already approved on paper but subject to additional vetting. That produces legal uncertainty and immediate financial pressure on families who depend on remittances or planned migration for work and family reunification.
Policy changes like this are often discussed in numbers. The human consequences show up in ordinary places:
• A mother in Freetown who depended on a sibling’s monthly remittance to pay school fees can face sudden gaps if that sibling’s paperwork is paused.
• A market trader who borrowed to pay shipment costs may struggle if customers switch to cheaper goods or stop buying at all.
• A student who planned to join family in the United States after graduation may find final arrangements delayed indefinitely.
Those consequences are real and measurable. Delays in legal migration create financial shocks that ripple through households, markets and schools. They also impose stress that affects mental health and social stability.
Diplomacy works, but unevenly. Ghana’s exemption shows that timely diplomatic engagement can secure clarifications or exceptions. That leaves other governments asking why similar results did not follow for their nationals. Transparency from the U.S. on the criteria used for exemptions would reduce speculation and help affected states respond.
Economic linkages matter. Many countries on the list receive important remittances from abroad. Interruptions to legal migration slow labor mobility, reduce household income, and can amplify effects from unrelated domestic shocks, such as rising food costs or tariff changes. Sierra Leone’s recent fiscal moves on commodities illustrate how domestic economic stress and external mobility constraints combine to hurt households.
Rule of law and selectivity: Critics indicate that the policy risks stereotyping entire nationalities and undermining due process. For the U.S. policymakers, a tradeoff exists between rapid security responses and targeted screening that would be able to preserve rights for lawful applicants. • Urgent consular outreach: Affected governments should press for written clarifications on scope, timelines and case handling, and should ensure consular hotlines and legal aid are available. • Targeted social supports: Short-term cash transfers or food assistance can blunt sudden income shocks while cases are re-examined. • Communication with citizens: clear, factual guidance reduces rumors and panic. Governments should explain what is changing and what is not. • Remittance flow tracking: Financial regulators and NGOs can track remittance channels that households depend on and tailor contingency support if flows drop. • Legal aid and documentation drives. Provide legal clinics to help applicants know what documentation to provide and how to respond to agency requests without delay.
Ghana’s exemption from the U.S. green card review removed immediate uncertainty for its citizens. For Sierra Leone and other nations on the affected list the record is different. The pause and review of immigration processing do not operate in isolation. They interact with domestic economic policy, remittance dependence and family strategies built around lawful mobility. Policymakers on all sides should aim for transparency, proportionality and measures that protect people while addressing genuine security concerns. The human stakes are high. Clarity and support will matter as much as the security rationale behind the policy.
