A federal judge has invalidated the Trump administration’s suspension of immigrant visa processing for citizens of 75 countries, ruling that the sweeping policy unlawfully discriminated against applicants based solely on their nationality and exceeded the authority granted to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The State Department announced earlier this year that immigrant visas would no longer be issued to nationals of Afghanistan, Brazil, Yemen and dozens of other countries. The administration said the affected countries were selected because their citizens were considered more likely to rely on public assistance after immigrating to the United States.
Under the policy, immigrant visas could be withheld even when individual applicants underwent consular review and officers concluded that they were likely to support themselves after arriving in the United States, according to Friday’s ruling by US District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York.
“In many ways, this is not a challenging case,” Vargas wrote.
The judge pointed to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which she said prohibits nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. The administration’s policy, she concluded, denied certain applicants visas “based solely on their nationality.”
As part of her ruling, Vargas cited a US diplomatic cable directing American consulates to reject immigrant visa applications that had already been approved in cases where the physical visas had not yet left the consular office.
Vargas determined that the administration’s policy was “contrary to law” and went beyond Rubio’s legal authority as secretary of state. Her decision vacated the 75-country suspension and also set aside visa denials that had been issued solely under the challenged policy.
Responding to the ruling, a State Department spokesperson said the Trump administration is “protecting the American people by upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants,” while noting that the administration does not discuss pending litigation.
When the visa suspension was initially announced, the State Department said it would “remain active until the U.S. can ensure that new immigrants will not extract wealth from the American people.”
The restrictions were one component of the Trump administration’s larger effort to reduce both legal and illegal immigration into the United States.
Another major immigration initiative suffered a setback in June, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. The justices rejected Trump’s executive order seeking to deny citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents had either entered the country illegally or were legally residing and working in the country on temporary visas. The order had never taken effect after lower courts found it unconstitutional.
Susan Welber, supervising attorney at The Legal Aid Society, which represented plaintiffs challenging the visa restrictions, argued that the administration’s justification for targeting the 75 countries was “premised on a fiction” that immigrants from those nations would be particularly likely to depend on government assistance.
“Any time that we can fight back against policies that are based on fictions and untruths and prejudices, I think we’re making for a more just immigration system,” Welber says.
The plaintiffs included the Catholic Immigration Legal Network and African Communities Together, organizations that provide immigration legal assistance. The case also involved six American citizens who had submitted family-based immigration petitions for relatives and five “intending immigrants” who filed employment-based petitions for themselves.
“The suspension of lawful visa processing across 75 countries separated spouses, parents, and children who were simply following the legal immigration process,” Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, said in a statement.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs said Vargas’ decision clears the way for their clients to resume moving through the legal immigration system rather than facing an automatic rejection because of their country of origin.
“For 75 countries’ worth of families, this decision means a return to fair, case-by-case review, and a chance to be reunited with their loved ones,” said Antionette Dozier, senior attorney for Western Center on Law & Poverty, which represented the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. “No administration gets to override the law because it deems an applicant’s nationality unacceptable.”
{Matzav.com}
