Photo from the post. PC: Sierraloaded
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Claim: A Facebook page, Sierraloaded, published a post claiming that U.S. Visa restrictions on Sierra Leone have been lifted.
Verdict: Misleading. A U.S. federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s suspension of immigrant visas affecting 75 countries, including Sierra Leone. However, this ruling does not lift all travel or immigration restrictions on Sierra Leonean nationals, nor does it guarantee visa approval for affected applicants.
Full Text
On Sunday, Aug. 23, 2026, a popular Facebook page, Sierraloaded, published a post claiming that a United States federal court had lifted visa restrictions affecting Sierra Leone. The claim attracted 331 likes, 45 comments, and 5 shares on Facebook and 5,199 views on their website.
In the website version of this post, Sierraloaded stated that a U.S. federal court had cancelled a policy suspending immigrant visa processing for applicants from Sierra Leone and 74 other countries, describing the ruling as a development that could reopen immigration pathways for thousands of affected individuals.
The post further stated that the ruling came as a relief for Sierra Leonean families separated by the restrictions. The claim also comes against the background of broader U.S. immigration restrictions introduced by the Trump administration in 2026.
The comments section of the Facebook post has generated multiple reactions and varying interpretations of the post.
Mohamed Benson Koroma clarified that, in his view, the full travel ban affecting Sierra Leone remains in place, distinguishing it from the separate visa pause that was lifted. He said the country was among the 39 countries still subject to the presidential proclamation and expressed hope that the restrictions would eventually be lifted.
“The main ban is still on, which is the 39 countries. The one that was lifted was the visa pause for the 75 countries, which SL was also part of. The full ban announced by Trump is still in effect for SL. It’s called a presidential proclamation. We are praying to get it lifted so that we will be free from all bans.”
Mohamed A Kamara argued that the lifting of the restriction was linked to U.S. interest in Sierra Leone’s mineral sector and urged the government to consider the matter carefully.
“Please be focused: this visa restriction has been lifted simply because of the mineral investment. The U.S. wants the government of Sierra Leone to agree on that; that’s why they lifted it. Please, papa government, think wisely.”
Victor Kongil disputed the claim that the restrictions had been lifted, noting that the Trump administration could appeal the court’s decision. He therefore described the claim as false.
“No visa restrictions have been lifted. The Trump administration has the option to appeal to a higher court, which I am sure it will do. So, it is false to say that the visa restrictions have been lifted.”
Charles Bahamood welcomed the development, describing it as good news and suggesting it could pave the way for stronger business relations between Sierra Leone and the United States. “This is good news for Sierra Leone. America is ready to do business with Sierra Leone. God bless the people of Sierra Leone.”
Abdul Jah cautioned against interpreting the federal judge’s ruling as an immediate lifting of the restrictions. “Just because a federal judge said it goes against the law doesn’t mean it has been lifted”
Albert B. Sam, however, viewed the development through a political lens, suggesting that it could be unfavourable to the opposition. “This is not good news for the opposition”
Abu Bakarr Sallieu Kamara accused SierraLoaded of using a misleading headline and maintained that Sierra Leone remains under the full travel ban. He argued that the restriction affecting 75 countries was a separate measure.
“SierraLoaded, your headline is misleading. Sierra Leone is still under a full travel ban. The 75 countries restriction was another section.”
Tejan Sheku questioned the page’s credibility, accusing it of publishing social media claims without adequate verification. “When it comes to credible information, we don’t trust this page. Because you guys can post anything you see on social media without verifying it.”
It’s important to verify this claim due to its varying interpretations and the controversy it has generated online.
Verification
DUBAWA first reviewed credible media reports on the court ruling to establish whether a U.S. federal judge had struck down the immigrant visa suspension affecting Sierra Leone and other countries. The review found that a U.S. federal judge did strike down the policy, as seen here, here, here, here, here and here.
Al Jazeera reported on August 22, 2026, that U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas in Manhattan had struck down a Trump administration policy that suspended the issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from 75 countries.
Vargas described the policy as “patently unlawful”. She ruled that it exceeded the legal powers of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and conflicted with federal immigration law on how immigrant visa applications should be processed.
Reuters also reported on August 22 that the policy was introduced in January and suspended immigrant visa processing for applicants from the 75 countries. The affected regions include Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Sierra Leone was among the countries affected.
The U.S. Department of State said the policy was necessary because applicants from the affected countries were considered more likely to become a public charge and rely on government assistance in the United States. However, the court ruled that the administration could not suspend the issuance of immigrant visas to people solely because of their nationality.
What the ruling means
The court’s decision struck down the specific policy that suspended the issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from 75 countries, including Sierra Leone.
However, this does not mean that all U.S. travel restrictions affecting Sierra Leonean nationals have been removed. Sierra Leone remains among the 39 countries subject to a separate full travel ban under the Trump administration’s proclamation. While the restriction affecting the 75 countries has been lifted, the separate 39-country ban remains in place, meaning Sierra Leonean nationals are still subject to full travel restrictions.
The ruling only addressed the 75-country immigrant visa suspension. It did not overturn separate U.S. travel restrictions covering 39 countries. Reports following the ruling noted that these national security-related restrictions remain in place.
The decision also does not mean that every Sierra Leonean applicant will automatically receive a U.S. immigrant visa. Applicants whose cases were affected by the suspended policy can now have their applications considered without the blanket nationality-based suspension. However, they must still meet other legal requirements, and other grounds for visa refusal may apply.
Therefore, Sierraloaded’s central claim that a U.S. court struck down the Trump administration’s immigrant visa suspension affecting Sierra Leone and 74 other countries is supported by credible reporting.
However, its headline, “U.S. Court Lifts Trump Visa Restrictions on Sierra Leone,” is broader than the court’s actual decision. The court struck down the specific immigrant visa suspension affecting nationals of 75 countries. It did not remove all U.S. visa or travel restrictions affecting Sierra Leoneans.
Conclusion
While it is true that a U.S. federal judge has struck down a Trump administration policy suspending the issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries, including Sierra Leone, the ruling does not eliminate all U.S. visa or travel restrictions affecting Sierra Leonean nationals, nor does it guarantee visas for affected applicants. The Sierra Leone-related post is therefore misleading.
This report was produced under the 2026 Kwame Karikari Fact-checking and OSINT Fellowship, co-hosted by DUBAWA and the Digital Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and Information Disorder Analysis Centre (DAIDAC), with support from the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID).
