Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Syrian Refugees

by

32618370855_0ce9850d26_z

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has dealt yet another blow to President Donald Trump’s embattled executive order entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” an order which temporarily prevented the admission of foreign nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries (Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Libya, and Yemen) and the admission of all refugees. As previously reported, the case reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel heard arguments against the President’s travel ban, brought by the state of Hawaii as well as other individual Plaintiffs.

Together, Judge Hawkins, Gould, and Paez, grilled the U.S. Solicitor General, Jeffrey Wall, representing the U.S. government, and attorney Neal Katyal, representing the state of Hawaii, concerning the constitutionality of the President’s executive order. Like the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court once against decided against the President’s executive order, albeit for different reasons. The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling against the travel ban is the latest in a string of court rulings rejecting the President’s executive order on statutory grounds.

In their 86-page opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the executive order on statutory grounds, stating that the President had exceeded his executive power and made an inadequate judgment call with the issuance of his executive order. “The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President broad powers to control the entry of aliens, and to take actions to protect the American public. But immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show,” stated the Court, referring to the nation’s system of checks and balances. The Court added “we conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress.” The Court further stated that the President’s executive order is at odds with various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act established by Congress, including a provision that prohibits nationality-based discrimination and a provision that requires the President to follow specific protocol when setting the annual cap on admission for refugees. The lower’s courts injunction on the travel ban will remain in place until a decision is issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Continue reading

by

32447754372_323436bfcc_z

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has handed down a ruling this morning, dealing yet another blow to the President’s embattled travel ban. The Court has refused to reinstate the President’s 90-day travel ban on Muslims from Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen and the 120-day travel ban on refugees. The Virginia court held that the President’s travel ban does not pass constitutional muster, given that it violates the establishment clause of the United States Constitution. The ruling upholds a lower court’s decision to block the President’s revised travel ban. The Fourth Circuit was forced to weigh the importance of the President’s travel ban in relation to our national security against potentially impinging on a person’s freedom of religion. In their decision, the Fourth Circuit stated that they did not believe that the President’s executive order “has more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the president’s proposed Muslim ban.”

As we previously reported, during the month of March, the President revised his travel ban after the Ninth Circuit Court rejected major portions of the travel ban declaring it unconstitutional. The President revised the travel ban hoping that the revised version would pass constitutional muster and would not be blocked by the federal courts. The revised executive order which was set to go into effect March 16, 2017, called for a 90-day travel ban on non-immigrants of six Muslim countries including Syria, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, and a 120-day travel ban on the admission of refugees into the United States.

Continue reading

by

31756508854_20f86e0ba5_z

Today in a Seattle courtroom the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on Trump’s revised travel ban. As you may recall President Trump issued a revised executive order in March to salvage his embattled travel ban, barring the entry of foreign nationals from Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen for a 90-day period and refugees for 120 days. For over an hour, a three-judge panel listened to arguments from the U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall arguing on behalf of the Trump administration and Neal Katyal, an attorney representing the state of Hawaii and individuals challenging the President’s revised travel ban. The three-judge panel included Judge Ronald Gould, a moderate judge from Seattle, Washington, Judge Michael Hawkins, a moderate to liberal judge from Phoenix, Arizona, and Judge Richard Paez a liberal judge from Pasadena, California. The central question before the court was whether the President’s revised travel ban amounts to a violation of the U.S. Constitution based on religious discrimination.

The mood in the courtroom was contentious. Judges probed the Solicitor General to determine whether the President’s revised travel ban was specifically aimed at Muslims. The Solicitor General argued that the executive order was neutrally worded and that there were no indications in the language of the President’s executive order to indicate that there was any intent to discriminate the Muslim population. In a heated exchange, liberal Judge Richard Paez countered that even if the President’s executive order was “neutrally worded,” taking a seemingly “neutral” stance does not mean an executive order is devoid of discriminatory intent. Judge Paez noted that the executive order that interned Japanese Americans during World War II was also neutrally worded given that there was no reference to Japanese people specifically, but that the President at the time did intend to discriminate that particular demographic. During oral argument, Judge Paez commented on remarks made by the President during his campaign which have indicated his intent to target Muslims specifically with his executive order. Paez stated that Trump made references to a Muslim ban “in the midst of a highly contentious campaign” raising questions about whether the court should consider taking that into account.

Continue reading

by

32559700202_bb44564ca3_z

Today, March 30, 2017, a federal judge from the state of Hawaii extended a court order blocking the President’s new travel ban from being enforced. In a 24-page decision, Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii issued a preliminary injunction bringing the President’s executive order to a screeching halt indefinitely. Judge Watson first gained national attention two weeks ago, following his issuance of a temporary restraining order or TRO, which prevented the federal government from enforcing all provisions of the travel ban for a 14-day period. Watson’s TRO was meant to provide temporary relief pending further litigation. The state of Hawaii asked the judge to convert the TRO into a longer-lasting form of relief known as a preliminary injunction, at least until a higher court could issue a permanent ruling. The President’s embattled executive order sought to prevent the admission of foreign nationals from 6 Muslim majority countries including Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Libya and Yemen, for a 90-day period as well as the admission of Syrian refugees for a 120-day period.

In his decision Judge Watson wrote that he based his grant of the preliminary injunction on the strong likelihood that the state of Hawaii would succeed in proving that the travel ban violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution which protects freedom of religion. In addition, the state of Hawaii successfully argued that absent the provisional relief, citizens of the state would be irreparably harmed. Attorneys for the state added that the state’s national economy would suffer in the absence of relief, and that its state universities would also be harmed by the President’s executive order in both the state’s ability to retain and recruit foreign born students and faculty.

Continue reading

by

32445191140_62cec6f188_z

In this series, our office brings you up to speed on all things immigration.

Reminders for H-1B applicants for Fiscal Year 2018

Beginning April 3, 2017 USCIS will begin to accept cap-subject H-1B petitions for fiscal year 2018. USCIS has recently announced that premium processing has been temporarily suspended beginning April 3, for a 6-month period, that means that petitioners CANNOT file Form I-907 request for premium processing while premium processing has been suspended. As a reminder, for the general cap (U.S. bachelor’s degree holders or the foreign equivalent) only 65,000 H-1B visas are available per fiscal year, while 20,000 H-1B visas have been allocated for the advanced degree exemption (U.S. Master’s degree holders or higher level of education). Our office has estimated that this H-1B season, advanced degree holders will have a 65 to 70% chance of being selected in the lottery, while individuals qualifying for the general U.S. bachelor’s cap will have a 35 to 40% chance of selection.

For more information about the H-1B visa please click here.

I-130 Consular Processing

If you have applied for an immigrant visa with the National Visa Center, a process that is also known as consular processing, and you are preparing your civil documents for shipment to the National Visa Center or for your immigrant visa interview, please be aware that the Department of State has recently made changes to the Country Reciprocity tables, requiring new or additional documents for certain foreign nationals depending on their country of nationality. All original civil documents must be presented at the immigrant visa interview by the intended beneficiary.

To view the updates please click here.

To review the complete Visa Reciprocity Table, please click here.

What is happening with Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban and what is a Temporary Restraining Order?

Trump’s revised executive order banning the admission of foreign nationals from 6 Muslim-majority countries (Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Iran, and Yemen) and the admission of refugees is currently on hold. A federal judge from the state of Hawaii has issued what is known as a TRO or Temporary Restraining Order.

What is a TRO?

A TRO is a provisional form of relief granted by the federal courts that prevents a party from doing a certain thing so that the moving party does not suffer harm. The relief provided by a TRO is immediate, because the order is only granted under emergency circumstances. A TRO goes into effect for 14 days and can be extended for another 14 days (maximum 28 days). A TRO is not permanent.

Continue reading

by

32587304895_da91aba89f_z

With only three days left until enforcement of President Donald Trump’s newly revised executive order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” Democratic legislators and immigration advocacy groups are rushing to file litigation in opposition of the new order. Although the new executive order has removed some of its controversial provisions, the essential components of the original order have remained the same. For example, the order continues to call for a 90-day travel ban on citizens of Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen who are outside of the United States on March 16, 2017 and who do not possess a valid U.S. visa or permanent resident card as of the date of the order. The order also calls for a travel ban on all refugees and suspension on all decisions for applications for refugee status for 120-days.

The new order has now removed Iraq from the list of countries affected by the travel ban and has removed the provision banning the admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely. The language of the newly revised version also makes clear that citizens of these 6 affected countries, who are legal permanent residents or who have valid U.S. visas as of the date of the order, will not be prevented from seeking admission to the United States. Citizens of these countries who do not already have a U.S. visa or green card on the date of the order will not be admitted until the temporary ban has been lifted. In addition, the new order exempts foreign nationals who are admitted into the United States on or after March 16, 2017, as well as dual nationals traveling on a passport issued by an unaffected country, and individuals traveling on diplomatic visas. The order also carves out a provision that allows qualifying individuals to apply for a waiver if they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the US official that their country would cause them undue hardship or that that they are not a threat to national security, and that their admittance is in the national interest. It seems however that these waivers will be rarely issued and difficult to obtain, unless the U.S. official determines that the foreign national’s admittance is in the national interest.

Continue reading

by

6312921667_8338e27578_z

On Monday, March 6, 2017 President Donald Trump rolled out a newly revised version of the executive order “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” following the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refusal to reinstate the controversial order that was originally released on January 27, 2017.  The January 27th order had called for a blank travel ban on citizens of seven Muslim majority countries, temporarily barring them from gaining admission into the United States for a period of 90 days, irrespective of their legal status in the United States. These seven Muslim majority countries were deemed “countries of particular concern” by the Trump administration based upon the Department of State’s reports designating these countries as countries presenting heightened security risks to the United States. In addition, in the original order, Donald Trump had called for a temporary 120-day suspension of the U.S. Refugee program preventing refugees from entering the United States, and finally the order suspended the Syrian refugee program indefinitely. These controversial measures threw the country into chaos as thousands of demonstrators flooded airports across the country to show their solidarity for the citizens of the seven Muslim majority countries affected by the order. The order was especially controversial because it affected all non-immigrants including immigrants with valid United States visas, as well as permanent residents. Although these measures were overruled by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February, the Trump administration has shown that it will not be discouraged by their actions.

In his new executive order, Donald Trump has scaled back the language used in the first executive order removing provisions that indefinitely banned Syrian refugees from seeking admission to the United States, and language which prioritized the admission of religious minorities persecuted in the Middle East. US officials will no longer prioritize religious minorities when considering applications for refugee admission. The new order calls for a travel ban blocking citizens from six Muslim majority countries including Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from applying for and obtaining visas for a period of 90 days. The order leaves in place a temporary travel ban blocking the admission of refugees into the United States for a period of 120 days to allow more stringent vetting procedures to be put in place. The executive order removes Iraq from the list of Muslim majority countries, whose citizens will no longer be prevented from seeking admission to the United States.

Continue reading

by
10753794774_02490d652f_z

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals San Francisco, CA

A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously ruled that the President’s Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” banning the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries will not be reinstated. The Court refused to reinstate the Order after hearing oral arguments from the solicitor general of Washington state arguing for the states of Washington and Minnesota, and counsel from Washington D.C. The panel was tasked with reviewing a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that was handed down by a federal judge from Seattle, an order which brought President Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” to a screeching halt. Since then several lawsuits have been filed against the President’s executive order and are making their way through the courts.

The Court considered four central questions before reaching their decision:

  • Whether the stay applicant “Government” has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;
  • Whether the applicant “Government” will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
  • Whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding and;
  • Where the public interest lies.

The Court concluded that the government failed to satisfy the first questions, and that arguments made by the government’s attorney in support of the last two questions did not justify the issuance of a stay to lift the temporary restraining order and reinstate the Executive Order. The Court reasoned that the government failed to show that it would be likely to succeed on appeal, noting the seriousness of the allegations raised by the States regarding religious discrimination and significant constitutional questions. In a powerful statement the Court noted that “the government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.” The Court further stated that the States “offered ample evidence that if the Executive Order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the States and multiple other interested parties.”

Continue reading

by

8720728323_1bf3dec7d1_z

Following a dramatic turn of events, on Friday, February 3, 2017, a federal judge from the Western District of Washington, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) halting enforcement of the President’s Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” nationwide. The temporary restraining order was issued in response to an emergency motion filed by the state of Washington and Minnesota. The states collectively filed the motion seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the controversial executive order which bans the entry of immigrant and non-immigrant foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen) for a 90-day period, suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for a 120-day period, and terminates the Syrian refugee program indefinitely.

In his ruling, Judge Robart stated that after hearing arguments, the States adequately demonstrated that they have suffered immediate and irreparable harm because of the signing and implementation of the order, and that granting a TRO would be in the public interest. In addition he stated “the Executive Order adversely affects the States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States. . . are significant and ongoing.” A three-judge panel from the Ninth Court Court of Appeals is expected to issue a final ruling on the Executive Order tomorrow.

Continue reading

by

32473146652_bb782aab20_z

In today’s post, we will discuss how green card holders may be affected by President Trump’s Executive Order imposing a temporary travel ban on foreign nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), including green card holders as well as non-immigrants. Since the release of the Executive Order, several courts have issued temporary injunctions preventing green card holders (LPRs), legally authorized to enter the United States, from being detained and/or removed from the United States until a federal court can decide the constitutionality of the orders.

In response to these court orders, the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has provided further guidance on the enforcement of these actions, and the impact on green card holders from these seven Muslim-majority countries. While both agencies have indicated that they are complying with the court orders, the consensus is that immigration officials will continue to enforce President Trump’s Executive Orders, and they will continue to remain in place.

What does this mean for green card holders? The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has stated that the entry of lawful permanent residents remains in the national interest, therefore “absent receipt of derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare,” lawful permanent resident status will be a deciding factor in allowing an LPR entry. The entry of lawful permanent residents will continue to be discretionary and green card holders will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Continue reading