Search results for: syria

On Dec. 4, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order allowing President Trump’s Proclamation on Travel Ban to go fully into effect. With certain exceptions, this ban places entry restriction on nationals of eight countries – Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. As previously reported, in September a U.S. District Judge in Hawaii blocked the Proclamation from taking effect, except for nationals of North Korea and Venezuela. On Nov. 13, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily put part of the lower court’s ruling on hold, allowing the Proclamation to take effect, but only for those individuals from the impacted countries who do not have bona fide ties to the United States.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Issues Order Allowing Full Implementation of Proclamation

On Sept. 24, 2017, President Trump issued a Proclamation with visa and travel restrictions. It imposed new limitations on nonimmigrant and immigrant visa issuance and travel to the United States for citizens/nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. The Proclamation came after two Executive Orders imposing travel bans were issued earlier this year but were delayed in implementation by the federal courts.

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Allows Partial Implementation of President Trump’s Proclamation on Travel Ban

On Tuesday, Oct. 10, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project (16-1436), one of the cases challenging a provision in a now-expired version of President Trump’s travel ban (Executive Order No. 13780).

Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Travel Ban Case

On Sept. 24, 2017, President Trump issued a Proclamation imposing new limitations on visa issuance and travel to the United States for nationals of eight countries entitled “Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.”  These countries include: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. This Proclamation was issued after the Attorney General and the Secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State collected information from more than 200 countries to determine whether there were threats or security concerns in a comprehensive report submitted to the president on July 9, 2017.  Out of the 200 countries evaluated and studied in the reports, a small number were determined to be deficient with regard to identity management and information sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices, as well as having a terrorist presence within the countries. The reports evaluated: 1) identity management information, including integrity documents such as passports; 2) national security and public safety information on criminal history; and 3) national security and public safety risk assessment focused on terrorist activity within the country.

Continue Reading.

As previously reported, the Supreme Court of the United States lifted the injunctions that were granted by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits after President Trump issued his second Executive Order mandating a temporary travel ban. This means that the second Executive Order (EO) is now in effect as of June 29.

The injunctions for the travel ban were issued for three sections: 1) 90 day suspension of travel for nationals from the following six countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen (Section 2(c)); 2) 120 day suspension of refugee admission into the United States (Section 6(a)), and 3) the reduction of the refugee cap (Section 6(b)).  Other parts of the EO were not addressed in the injunctions, but many were nevertheless effectively moot if those two sections were not in effect.

The Supreme Court, in lifting the injunctions on the EO, narrowed the scope of application for Sections 2(c), 6(a), and 6(b).  Specifically, those sections will only apply to nationals from the six designated countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” This means that the travel ban and refugee admission sections will not apply to those who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Specifically, the Supreme Court gave examples of what bona fide relationship means, which are the following:

  1. For individuals:  a close familial relationship.
  2. For entities:  a relationship that is formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, and could include students and nonimmigrant workers.

The Supreme Court did not clarify how the bona fide relationship will be determined, by what entity it will be determined, and whether there will be any changes related to entry into the United States or the visa application process. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State have not yet issued any guidelines, but it is worth noting that the Supreme Court, in its analysis, references a waiver that a foreign national may apply for, on a case-by-case basis, if he or she can meet the criteria that denial of entry would: 1) cause undue hardship; 2) the entry would not pose a threat to national security, and 3) it would be in the  national interest for the person to enter the United States.

Commonly Asked Questions

Questions on International Travel/ Entry into the United States:

  • Who is affected?

Nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen who do not hold green cards or other valid visas, and do not have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States as of June 26, 2017.

  • What can you expect when traveling?

It is likely that there will be heightened security.  If you are traveling with a passport from one of the six countries, it is important to carry additional documents to prove your bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States.  Expected guidance from government agencies should be published shortly.

  • What if I am traveling with a passport from one of the six countries, but I have a valid visa stamp?

You may be permitted to travel into the United States, but CBP may want to see documents to prove your bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States.

  • What if you are a dual national?

The EO specifically states that dual nationals using a passport that is not from one of the six countries will not be affected, though you may be subject to additional scrutiny.

  • Should I apply for Global Entry?

You may use global entry or sign up if you are eligible.

  • Are Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) affected?

They will not be affected by the travel ban.

  • Is this Permanent?

The EO has been reinstated as of June 29, for a period of 90 days for the ban relating to nationals of the six listed countries and 120 days for refugees.  It can either then expire, or be extended per the president. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Ninth and Fourth Circuit cases in October, if the cases are not then deemed to be moot.

  • What if you are traveling to the United States from one of the six countries but not a national?

Be prepared for additional screening.

  • Will the list expand?

Possibly. The EO gives authority to add and remove countries.

Questions on Visa Issuance:

  • May I apply for a visa stamp?

Yes, if you are not using the passport of one of the six countries.

  • What if I do not have a second nationality? Will I qualify for a waiver?

The Department of State has not yet issued guidance, but we expect that guidance will be issued to allow an applicant who is a national of one of the six countries to prove a bona-fide relationship as of  June 26 to an individual or entity in the US.

  • What can I expect from my visa interview appointment if I have traveled to one of the six countries or have a second passport from one of the six countries?

Additional screening procedures are forthcoming.

  • Will I still qualify for a visa interview waiver if I am extending my visa?

Various consulates are still utilizing the drop-box option for those who qualify.

  • How do I know what each U.S. Consulate requires or if procedures are different?

You may check with each individual consulate website.

GT will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available.

On Monday, June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States partially revived part of President Trump’s second Executive Order (EO-2)  mandating a temporary travel ban from six Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, which will be in effect on June 29, 2017. EO-2 also sought to suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and limit the number of refugees in this fiscal year.  The Supreme Court also granted certiorari to review the lower court decisions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits that issued injunctions prohibiting the implementation of President Trump’s EO-2 beginning March 26, 2017.  Oral arguments are scheduled to take place in the Fall of 2017, when the Supreme Court’s next term begins.

President Trump issued EO-2 on March 6, 2017, which, among other things, restricts entry of nationals from six designated countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for a temporary period of 90 days.  Iraq, which appeared in President Trump’s first Executive Order (EO-1), was removed from EO-2 because Iraq agreed to provide additional information about visa applicants to the United States, and accept the return of Iraqi nationals who were ordered removed from the United States. EO-2’s 90-day temporary travel ban was originally set to begin on March 16, 2017, and expire on June 14, 2017.  On June 14, President Trump issued a memorandum to Executive Branch officials declaring the effective date of EO-2 to be the date on which the lower courts’ injunctions are lifted or stayed.

At issue in the Supreme Court’s decision today are Sections 2(c) and 6 of EO-2.  Section 2(c) calls for the 90-day temporary travel ban prohibiting the entry of nationals from the six-Muslim majority nations to the United States. In EO-2, President Trump determined that the temporary travel ban of nationals from these six countries was necessary to ensure that dangerous individuals did not enter the United States while the United States developed “adequate standards” for applicants who are seeking visas to enter the United States. Section 6 freezes the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and prohibits the admission of refugees into the United States.

In today’s decision, the Supreme Court held that President Trump can enforce the 90-day temporary travel ban that prohibits entry of nationals from the six designated countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The Supreme Court limited Section 2(c)’s scope, stating that this section “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The Supreme Court held that the same standard should be applied to Section 6, which bars refugees from entering the United States. Specifically, Section 6 “may not be enforced against an individual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The Supreme Court did not exhaustively list what sorts of credible claims of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States qualifies to be removed from EO-2’s purview, but noted that the relationships at issue in the present cases qualified. Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that individuals who were subject to the travel ban of EO-2 must have a close familial relationship with a person in the United States. “A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member . . . clearly has such a relationship.” For entities, the individual must have a “formal, documented” relationship with the entity that was not formed simply to evade the EO-2’s reach. Foreign nationals who were accepted into a college or university, or accepted an offer of employment from an American company would qualify as a credible claim of a bona fide relationship according to the Supreme Court. Section 2(c)’s 90-day temporary travel ban begins today, June 29, 2017, and will expire on Sept. 27, 2017.

While it is not clear how U.S. Department of State and U.S. Customs and Border Protection will interpret and enforce the Supreme Court’s decision today, employers should note that a foreign-national employee from one of the six designated countries may be refused an employment visa or admission into the United States if the foreign national does not have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a U.S-based person or an American entity. It is important for impacted foreign-national employees who plan to travel internationally during the next 90 days to carry with them evidence of their employment relationship, which can include a signed offer of employment, employment verification letter, and recent pay statements, among other documents. Foreign-national students who plan to travel internationally may also carry with them their Form I-20 and a letter of enrollment issued by the academic institution. Finally, in light of this decision, for impacted individuals to secure a visa at a U.S. Consulate abroad or gain admission into the United States it is important to be able to document a close familial relationship with an individual in the United States. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security confirmed today in a statement that it will release additional details, particularly to potentially impacted nationals, on implementing EO-2 after consulting with the U.S. Departments of State and Justice.

Greenberg Traurig will continue to monitor events surrounding the Supreme Court’s decision and provide updates relating to relevant agencies in connection with the now revived EO-2.

On Monday, June 12, a second Federal Appeals Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a per curiam decision, affirmed a nationwide preliminary injunction of President Trump’s revised travel ban that was issued March 15, 2017, by a U.S. District Court judge in Hawaii.  President Trump’s second Executive Order (EO), “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” which would have gone into effect March 16, 2017, temporarily bans U.S. entry for nationals from six Muslim-majority countries including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, and sought to suspend the nation’s refugee program and limit the number of refugees in this fiscal year. The revised EO was issued after the initial travel ban in January was withdrawn by President Trump due to legal setbacks.

A Federal Judge in Maryland initially issued a preliminary injunction against the revised travel ban on March 16. On May 25, the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against the travel ban and affirmed the nationwide preliminary injunction on the EO. President Trump’s administration has appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and has asked for authority to enforce the EO while in the appeal process.

After the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii also blocked the EO and issued a temporary restraining order in March, the Ninth Circuit for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on June 12. The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit refused to reinstate Trump’s revised EO on travel and unanimously upheld the nationwide injunction on the EO finding that the EO violates federal immigration law and fails to explain why admission of nationals from the six countries is detrimental to the United States. The court said, “In conclusion, the Order does not offer a sufficient justification to suspend the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality.” The Ninth Circuit also concluded that President Trump lacked the legal authority to suspend the admission of refugees. The judges wrote: “We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress.”

The Ninth Circuit did, however, vacate part of the injunction allowing the government to perform review of internal vetting procedures for these travelers. All other parts of the restraining order remain in place.

Greenberg Traurig will continue to monitor developments and provide updates in connection with President Trump’s revised EO.

On Thursday, May 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in an en banc decision, affirmed a nationwide preliminary injunction on President Trump’s revised travel ban that was issued March 16, 2017, by a U.S. District Court judge in Maryland. President Trump’s new executive order (EO), “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” which would have gone into effect March 16, 2017, temporarily bans U.S. entry for nationals from six Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

In a 10-3 ruling, the Fourth Circuit upheld the lower court’s preliminary injunction barring the administration from suspending visa issuance and preventing entry for nationals from the six countries. The Appellate Court opined that the revised EO served more to effectuate the president’s agenda of religious discrimination against Muslims rather than its stated purpose to protect national security and prevent possible terrorist attacks. The opinion also stated that a “reasonable observer” could find that the primary goal of the revised EO “appears to be religious, rather than secular.” Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit held that while the president does have “broad power to deny entry” to immigrants, such power is not absolute.

On May 15, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the travel ban in a similar appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Its ruling is expected within the next several weeks. However, as long as the Fourth Circuit’s nationwide injunction remains in effect, President Trump’s revised travel ban for nationals of the six countries will remain blocked regardless of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

Greenberg Traurig will continue to monitor developments and provide updates in connection with President Trump’s revised EO.

On March 15, 2017, the day before President Trump’s new Executive Order (EO) entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” went into effect, a federal judge in Hawai’i issued a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the implementation of the EO. This EO, issued on March 6, 2017, revoked and replaced the original EO issued on Jan. 25, 2017. The first EO was also temporarily halted by a federal court in Seattle, after which the Ninth Circuit stayed the ruling.

In the current case at hand, State of Hawai’i and Ismail Elshikh vs. Donald J. Trump, et al., Judge Derrick K. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai’i granted the Motion for TRO filed earlier in the week. The TRO was granted on grounds that the EO violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In his ruling, Judge Watson cited portions of the new EO that suspend U.S. entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, with certain exceptions carved out that were not explicit in the first EO, such as exempting lawful permanent residents and those who are already physically in the United States. The new EO also includes text that suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days.

The plaintiffs in the case, the State of Hawai’i and Dr. Elshikh, both cited to injuries that would occur to both the state and the family, respectively, if the EO was implemented, since it bans travel for nationals from one of the six designated countries who are abroad. The plaintiffs also stressed that the text of the EO effectively targets the Muslim religion, quoting statements made during interviews and campaigns by the administration.  As such, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin Sections 2 and 6 of the new EO.

Judge Watson found that the State of Hawai’i had standing, based on the fact that its university systems would suffer from both a cultural and financial burden, as would its tourism industry. He also found that Dr. Elshikh had standing due to the fact that he was able to show injury to his family if the EO was implemented.

As to the legal basis for granting the TRO, Judge Watson found that due to the background, history, and intent of the newly issued EO, the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of an Establishment Clause claim.

In addition, on March 16, 2017, a federal judge in Maryland also temporarily blocked the order.

Greenberg Traurig will continue to monitor events surrounding this TRO and provide updates relating to relevant agencies in connection with the newly issued EO.

The heavily anticipated new Executive Order (EO), “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” banning nationals from six countries from entering the United States, was signed by President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017 with an effective date 10 days following on March 16, 2017. This new EO revokes and replaces the previous EO 13769 signed on Jan. 27, 2017. The replacement EO provides additional clarification that stemmed from judicial review. For a summary of EO 13769, and a history of events that transpired, please visit.

Highlights of changes in the new EO include:

  • The six countries under the travel ban are Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.  Iraq has been lifted from the travel ban.
  • Clarification has been given that lawful permanent residents are not subject to the travel ban, and dual nationals may use another passport (that is not from one of the six countries) to enter the United States.
  • Waivers may be granted to individuals applying for a visa who are subject to the travel ban if: 1) denying entry during this period would cause undue hardship, 2) the entry would not pose a threat to national security, and 3) it would be in the national interest of the United States. Examples were provided of situations where a waiver would be appropriate.
  • Entry under the U.S. Refugee Admission Program will be halted for 120 days from March 16, 2017. Notably, the blanket halt on Syrian refugees has been removed.
  • The Visa Interview Waiver Program is suspended until further guidance from the Department of State.
  • Those who are in the United States will not have their visas revoked.

The new EO provides an explanation for some components of EO 13769 that are now rescinded, amended, or clarified in this Order. A section-by-section analysis is below:

Section 2:  Suspension of Visa Issuance- Iraq Removed

The text of this EO calls for the suspension of issuance of visas to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen, except in case-by-case waivers, for 90 days from the effective date of the EO (March 16, 2017), while an ongoing assessment of the countries for terrorist threats is conducted. Notably, Iraq has been removed as one of the original countries subject to the travel ban. The reason cited is that the United States has been closely working with the Iraqi government and because of the military presence in Iraq, and Iraq’s commitment to fight ISIS, removing this country from the travel ban is justified.

In addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, will conduct a worldwide review to identify additional information, if necessary, from any country to ensure that the individual applying for a visa benefit is not a security threat. Within 20 days of March 16, 2017, a required report will be submitted to the President on the results of the worldwide review. Copies of this report will also be given to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence.

Once the report has been submitted to all parties, the Secretary of State shall request the foreign governments to provide the information needed within 50 days of notification. After the 50 day period has expired, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, will submit to the President a list of countries where certain categories of foreign nationals should be prohibited from visa issuance because they have not provided the information. Additional countries may also be submitted for consideration to be added to the list of countries where restrictions or limitations are deemed necessary to protect the United States. In the same way, countries may be recommended for removal from the list as well.

Four reports, each submitted within 30 days of the effective date of the Order (March 16, 2017) to President Trump, are required to document the progress. Continue Reading New Travel Ban Order to Temporarily Halt Entry for Those Seeking New Visas from 6 Muslim-Majority Countries