Synopsis

A US federal judge has struck down the Trump administration’s suspension of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, ruling it violated immigration law. Visa refusals based solely on the policy were also set aside and must be reconsidered by consular officers.

Reuters

A federal judge in New York has vacated the Trump administration’s policy suspending immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, ruling that the policy violated US immigration law and exceeded the authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.



US District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas issued the ruling on August 21 in a case brought by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, African Communities Together, immigrant visa applicants and US citizens sponsoring relatives from the affected countries.



The State Department had announced the suspension on January 14, saying it would take effect on January 21. The policy targeted applicants from countries that the department considered at high risk of becoming a “public charge” or using government welfare.

The affected countries included Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Nigeria, Ghana, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Yemen, among others. The court noted that the policy covered nationals of nearly 40% of the world’s countries.

Court says policy violated immigration law

The court said the policy required consular officers to refuse immigrant visas based on nationality, even when applicants were otherwise eligible and had not been individually found likely to become public charges.



Under US law, consular officers must assess each applicant’s circumstances, including age, health, family status, financial resources, education and skills.



The court said the policy conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars discrimination in immigrant visa issuance based on nationality, race, sex, place of birth or place of residence.



The ruling also said the policy violated regulations that allow visa refusals only on grounds specifically provided under US law or implementing regulations.



“The Court holds that the Policy is contrary to law and was issued in excess of Secretary Rubio’s statutory authority,” Judge Vargas wrote.

Visa refusals based only on policy also set aside

The court vacated the policy in its entirety and set aside immigrant visa refusals that were based solely on the suspension.



Those applications must now be sent back to consular officers for fresh decisions. However, the ruling does not cancel refusals based on other legal grounds, even if the policy was also mentioned in the refusal.



The court said consular officers have exclusive authority to decide whether individual visa applications should be approved or refused. It added that the officers may refuse an application on another legal ground, but not solely because of the vacated policy.

No further review of policy ordered

The government had argued that the matter should be sent back to the State Department for further consideration. The court rejected that request, saying the policy’s legal defects could not be corrected through further agency review.



The court also issued declaratory relief, finding that the policy violated provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the State Department’s regulations.



The parties must submit proposals by September 11 on how to proceed with the remaining claims in the case.

(Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates)

Add as a Reliable and Trusted News Source
Add Now!

(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, and Latest News Updates on The .)

…more

Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea.