Travel Ban 2.0 Blocked Indefinitely

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – March 30, 2017 As reported on March 30, 2017 by Laura Jarrett, CNN, “A federal judge in Hawaii granted the state’s request for a longer-term halt of the revised travel ban executive order Wednesday [March 29^th]. U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson blocked the core provisions of the revised executive order two weeks ago, concluding that the order likely violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by disfavoring Muslims. But Watson’s earlier decision was only a limited freeze of the executive order through a temporary restraining order. As a result, the plaintiffs asked the judge to convert that decision into a longer-term preliminary injunction and Watson agreed Wednesday night, meaning that the President’s 90-day ban on foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries and the 120-ban on all refugees entering the country are now blocked indefinitely, unless any higher court changes Watson’s order or the state’s lawsuit is otherwise resolved.”

Update: The Trump Administration filed an appeal to the District Court's ruling on March 30.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Temporary Restraining Order Issued for Travel Ban 2.0

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – March 15, 2017 On March 15, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the federal government from enforcing the travel ban in the March 6, 2017 Executive Order (EO) on a nationwide basis. In his order, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson stated that the EO was “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion” and that “nationwide relief is appropriate in light of the likelihood of success.” The travel ban will therefore not take effect on March 16, and the government is prohibited from enforcing the travel ban until further ordered from the court. As with the previous litigation, there may be further hearings before a permanent order is issued.

Update: On March 16, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland separately issued a ruling barring the implementation of the EO. The Department of State also issued a statement of compliance with the court orders.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

USCIS temporarily suspends Premium Processing Service for H-1B petitions

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – March 3, 2017 On March 3, 3017, USCIS announced that starting April 3, 2017, it will temporarily suspend premium processing for all H-1B petitions. This suspension may last up to 6 months. The temporary suspension applies to all H-1B petitions filed on or after April 3, 2017, including all FY18 cap-subject H-1B petitions, including regular, master’s advanced degree, and cap-exempt cases.  While premium processing is suspended, petitioners may submit a request to expedite an H-1B petition if they meet certain criteria. USCIS indicated that it needs the suspension to focus on reducing backlogs and processing times.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Revised travel ban delayed again

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – March 1, 2017 According to reports on March 1, 2017, the White House has further delayed issuing its revised travel ban. News reports on February 28th and March 1st indicate that the new ban will exclude Iraq from the list of seven countries whose citizens are to be banned, and that the ban will not apply to U.S. permanent residents and existing visa holders. Reportedly, the revised ban will have a “phased-in” approach to minimize disruption to travelers in transit. These reports have not been confirmed or denied in official government statements.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

New travel ban to be issued on Wednesday, March 1

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 27, 2017 As of February 27, 2017, a revised “travel ban” has not been released by the White House. Reports indicate that it may be released on Wednesday, March 1. To date, there are no confirmed reports of what the revised ban will entail. We are watching closely for developments.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Immigration enforcement and travel ban updates

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 23, 2017 On Monday, February 20, 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued two memoranda to its sub-agencies concerning immigration enforcement and in particular the agency’s plans for implementing President Trump’s two Executive Orders related to U.S. border and interior enforcement. The DHS memoranda rescind and replace all previous agency guidance regarding enforcement priorities against undocumented immigrants (with the exception of President Obama’s Dreamer and DACA/DAPA orders), expanding the pool of persons prioritized for removal to include undocumented immigrants who have been charged with (not necessarily convicted of) any criminal offense, or who have “committed acts” that constitute a chargeable offense. The memoranda also end long-standing protections to children, massively expand immigration detention, and call for the hiring of thousands of ICE and CBP officers. Further commentary is available here.

As of February 23, 2017, a revised “travel ban” has not been released by the White House. Reports indicate that it may be released in the week of February 27th. To date, there are no confirmed reports of what the revised ban will entail.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

White House intends to issue new travel ban

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 16, 2017 In briefing filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 16, 2017, the White House indicated that it was not seeking further review of the travel ban that was part of Executive Order 13769. Instead, it stated that it intends to issue a new Executive Order intended to “eliminate . . . constitutional concerns” with the initial order. If a new Executive Order is released, it would likely moot the existing litigation.

We are watching closely for developments related to the litigation and any new Executive Orders related to travel. In the meantime, unless/until a new Executive Order is released and the litigation is vacated by a court, all U.S. land and air ports of entry are prohibited from enforcing Executive Order 13769 until further orders from a court.

Update: On February 16th the Ninth Circuit issued an order stating that en banc proceedings are stayed pending further orders of the court. President Trump stated in a news conference that the new executive order would be issued next week.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Next steps in the travel ban litigation

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 14, 2017 As noted previously, on February 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a per curiam order, denied the federal government’s motion for an emergency stay. The order barring implementation of the travel and refugee ban therefore remains in place.

On February 10, a Ninth Circuit judge made a sua sponte request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three-judge panel on February 9 should be reconsidered en banc. Briefs on whether the matter should be reconsidered en banc are due by February 16. Therefore, February 16 is the earliest date on which a Ninth Circuit decision regarding re-hearing the February 9 panel decision would be issued.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Next steps in the travel ban litigation

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 10, 2017 As noted previously, on February 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a per curiam order, denied the federal government’s motion for an emergency stay, finding that it failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, and that it also failed to show that the lack of a stay would cause irreparable injury. Therefore, until further action by a court, the order barring implementation of the travel and refugee ban remains in place, and all individuals may apply for visas and admission to the United States without regard to nationality.

In terms of next steps, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has ordered all briefing associated with the State of Washington and State of Minnesota’s motion for preliminary injunction to be completed by Friday, February 17, 2017. A hearing on the preliminary injunction has not yet been scheduled. In the meantime, the White House may seek Supreme Court intervention although five of the current 8 justices would need to vote to overturn the Circuit Court’s decision (a 4-4 split would simply re-affirm the Circuit Court’s decision).

Update: According to reports, the White House won’t immediately appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Ninth Circuit may re-hear the case en banc.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Ninth Circuit denies White House motion to re-instate travel ban

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 9, 2017

On February 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the White House’s motion to re-instate the travel ban in Executive Order 13769.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s temporary restraining order, prohibiting the federal government from enforcing the travel ban on a nationwide basis, is still in place.  All U.S. land and air ports of entry are prohibited from enforcing the Executive Order until further orders from the court.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of Executive Order 13769 still in place

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 8, 2017

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s temporary restraining order, prohibiting the federal government from enforcing the travel ban in Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017 on a nationwide basis, is still in place.

The White House’s motion for a stay of the District Court’s decision to lift the travel ban, before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is expected to be ruled on this week. In the meantime, all U.S. land and air ports of entry are prohibited from enforcing the Executive Order until further orders from the court.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of Executive Order 13769 still in place

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 6, 2017 As of Monday, February 6, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s temporary restraining order prohibiting the federal government from enforcing the travel ban in Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017 on a nationwide basis is still in place.

The White House’s motion for a stay pending its appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is set for oral argument at 3:00 PM PT on Tuesday, February 7th in front of a three-judge panel. All U.S. land and air ports of entry are prohibited from enforcing the Executive Order until further orders from the court.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

White House and USCIS clarifications regarding Executive Order banning U.S. entries by citizens of seven countries

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 3, 2017 As discussed in our prior posts, an Executive Order signed by President Trump on January 27, 2017 bans immigrant and nonimmigrant entries into the United States, for at least 90 days, by nationals of seven countries – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

In the days following the Executive Order, its ambiguous language and the inconsistent application of its provisions at U.S. ports of entry and in other parts of the U.S. government created confusion among foreign-born travelers to the United States.  In addition to several clarifications mentioned in this post, the White House and USCIS have issued further guidance, including the following:

• Lawful Permanent Residents: A February 1, 2017 White House memorandum to the acting Secretary of State, the acting Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, stated that Sections 3(c) and 3(e) of Executive Order 13769 does not apply to lawful permanent residents (LPRs) of the United States. Therefore, LPRs who are nationals of one of the seven countries no longer need to receive a waiver to enter the United States.

• USCIS Benefits Requests: A February 2, 2017 memo from USCIS Acting Director Lori Scialabba to USCIS employees stated that Section 3 of the Executive Order does not affect USCIS adjudication of applications and petitions filed for or on behalf of individuals in the U.S regardless of nationality.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Update on rumored expansion of U.S. entry ban to additional countries

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 2, 2017 Seven countries are currently listed in the President’s Executive Order of January 27, 2017 banning entry of some foreign nationals to the United States – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. On February 1, 2017, unconfirmed rumors circulated regarding the potential addition of up to ten more countries/regions, as reported in our second post of 02/01/2017.

As a follow up to the unconfirmed rumors, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) informed the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) on February 2, 2017 that there are no current plans to expand the travel ban beyond current seven countries.

Further, DOS issued a statement on February 2, 2017 clarifying that, “This Executive Order does not restrict the travel of dual nationals from any country with a valid U.S. visa in a passport of an unrestricted country. Our Embassies and Consulates around the world will continue to process visa applications and issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from one of the seven restricted countries.”

Please refer to our prior posts for more information on the Executive Order of January 27, 2017 (Executive Order 13769, titled “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals”) and subsequent clarifications by the Department of Homeland Security about how it will treat Lawful Permanent Residents, persons with dual nationality, existing nonimmigrant and immigrant visas, and more.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Unconfirmed rumors - more countries could be added to U.S. entry ban

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 1, 2017 Seven countries are currently listed in the President's Executive Order of 1/27/2017 banning entry of some foreign nationals to the United States – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. There are unconfirmed rumors that the following countries/regions could be added to the ban on entry:

Afghanistan Colombia Egypt Lebanon Pakistan Southern Philippines Sulu/Sulawesi seas littoral Trans-Sahara (Mali) Turkey Venezuela

Anyone with country of birth, nationality or citizenship from these countries/regions may wish to consider not departing the United States, if they are already here; or returning to the United States immediately, if they are abroad.

Please refer to our prior posts for more information. In particular, our first post of 02/01/2017 discussed clarifications by the Department of Homeland Security about how it will treat Lawful Permanent Residents, persons with dual nationality, existing nonimmigrant and immigrant visas, and more.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

DHS clarifications regarding Executive Order banning U.S. entries by citizens of seven countries

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 1, 2017 As discussed in our post of January 30, 2017, an Executive Order signed by President Trump on January 27, 2017 bans immigrant and nonimmigrant entries into the United States, for at least 90 days, by nationals of seven countries – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Other countries may be added to the list and adjudications of other immigration benefits could be affected. (The Executive Order is also targeted at refugee admissions, with longer bans; however, our posts are currently focused on immigrant and nonimmigrant visa provisions.)

In the days following the Executive Order, its ambiguous language and the inconsistent application of its provisions at U.S. ports of entry and in other parts of the U.S. government created confusion among foreign-born travelers to the United States. Much remains to be resolved through litigation and legislation, but in the meantime, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has provided some clarifications. In a Q&A posted by U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) on 1/31/2017, CBP made the following clarifications:

• Lawful Permanent Residents: Individuals from the listed countries who are U.S. lawful permanent residents (LPRs, or green card-holders) will be exempted from the bar on entry “in the national interest,” unless CBP finds “significant derogatory information” indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare. Green card holders intending to travel to the United States must apply for a waiver of the bar. So far, a majority of such waiver applications have been granted; however, the term “significant derogatory information” has not been defined.

• Dual Nationality: The Executive Order refers to individuals “from” the seven countries, leaving open the question whether dual citizens of one of these countries and any other country outside the United States would be subject to the bars on entry. CBP has now clarified that “Travelers are being treated according to the travel document they present.” Therefore, for example, a dual citizen of Iran and Canada who presents a Canadian passport should be treated as a Canadian applicant for admission. Note that this is not apparent from the Executive Order itself; it is CBP’s policy statement and may be subject to change.

• Visas Immediately Revoked: Upon issuance of the Executive Order, all immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued to citizens of the seven countries were revoked. Individuals physically in the United States and maintaining legal status did not lose their status as a result of the order, but any visa that would have permitted them to return to the United States from travel abroad ceased to be valid. Visa-holders outside the United States who attempt to return will not be permitted to do so at this time if they are citizens of one of the seven countries. With regard to international students, interns and trainees on F-1, J-1, and M-1 visas that are canceled, suspended or revoked because of the Executive Order, CBP has stated that DHS is evaluating whether those who are precluded from returning to the United States “will be considered to have maintained their status as F1 or M1 students.” The meaning of this is not clear, but it suggests that students unable to maintain the required full-time course of study due to their inability to enter the United States, should they eventually be admitted to the United States to resume their studies, might not be required to apply for “reinstatement” to valid status as they otherwise would be required to do.

• Naturalization Applications: The Executive Order has prompted many longtime U.S. permanent residents to finally take the step of applying to become naturalized U.S. citizens. Despite rumors of a freeze on USCIS processing of naturalization applications and other visa- and immigration-related applications, the government has stated that “USCIS will continue to adjudicate N-400 applications for naturalization and administer the oath of citizenship consistent with prior practices.” Naturalization applicants from certain countries, including the seven countries named in the Executive Order, have historically been more likely to experience longer delays and extra scrutiny in the naturalization process, and this is not expected to change.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017