This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/us/visa-ban-legal-challenge.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Visa Ban Touches Far More People Than First Thought Dueling Court Rulings on Immigration Ban Add to Visa Chaos
(about 7 hours later)
A lawyer for the United States government said in federal court in Virginia on Friday that more than 100,000 visas had been revoked as part of President Trump’s policy halting travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, a move a judge said was causing “chaos,” a lawyer for the plaintiff said. Rival court decisions on opposite sides of the country created deep confusion over President Trump’s immigration order on Friday, with a federal judge in Boston issuing a decision defending the measure and another in Seattle blocking it nationwide.
While protesters have focused on the executive order stopping foreigners from entering the country, a State Department memo that was not initially released publicly went much further, canceling at least temporarily almost all visas from the seven countries. The New York Times reported on Thursday that tens of thousands of these visas, for foreigners inside and outside the United States, had been revoked without any notice to the visa holders. Had any of them left the United States, they would have most likely lost the ability to return. The Seattle ruling was the most far-reaching to date, temporarily reopening the door to visa holders from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The federal government was “arguing that we have to protect the U.S. from individuals from these countries, and there’s no support for that,” said the judge, James Robart of Federal District Court, an appointee of President George W. Bush, in a decision delivered from the bench.
The 100,000 figure cited in court on Friday represented the first time the government had quantified the number of revoked visas. After the hearing, however, a State Department official provided a lower number, saying it was “fewer than 60,000.” The Justice Department did not say whether it would appeal the ruling, and it was unclear Friday night how quickly, or even if, the revoked travel rights would be restored.
“To put that number in context, we issued over 11 million immigrant and nonimmigrant visas in fiscal year 2015,” said the official, William Cocks, a spokesman for the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the State Department. “As always, national security is our top priority when issuing visas.” “The department looks forward to reviewing the court’s written order and will determine next steps,” said Nicole A. Navas, a Justice Department spokeswoman.
In either case, the figures demonstrated how many more people were affected than just those detained or deported amid the confusion at American airports over the weekend. That ruling came shortly after a federal judge in Boston gave the government a victory in declining to extend a temporary halt to the order in that jurisdiction.
“You could hear the gasps in the courtroom when he said that,” said Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, legal director of the Immigrant Advocacy Program of the Legal Aid Justice Center. He is a lawyer for the plaintiffs, two Yemeni brothers who said they had been coerced into signing away their rights to enter the country while in custody at Dulles International Airport outside Washington. The judge, Nathaniel M. Gorton, who was appointed to the bench by the first President George Bush, said that while the nation’s immigration history was a source of great pride and that the plaintiffs in that case — Iranian nationals who are academics — had compelling stories, “the public interest in safety and security in this ever-more dangerous world is strong as well.”
“It’s more than 100,000 lives turned upside down,” said Mr. Sandoval-Moshenberg. “For every person not being allowed into the United States right now, there are family members and other people affected by that.” The decisions added to widespread disagreement over how the policy was being carried out, flummoxing immigration lawyers, government officials and travelers a full week after its signing.
The judge in the case, Leonie M. Brinkema of Federal District Court in Alexandria, described the Trump administration’s handling of the executive order as causing “chaos,” the lawyer said. The administration has been criticized for issuing its order without any warning to refugees and visa holders who were on their way to the United States. Some arrived at airports for flights and were turned away. To gasps in a Virginia courtroom, a lawyer for the government told a federal judge on Friday that more than 100,000 visas had been revoked as part of President Trump’s order. A State Department official later contradicted that number, saying that the figure was “fewer than 60,000.”
With the varying court rulings, the involvement of three executive agencies in addition to the White House, and airlines inconsistent in how they were applying the order, no two people could be guaranteed comparable treatment.
“It’s quite clear it was not all that thought out,” said Judge Leonie Brinkema of Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., an appointee of President Bill Clinton. “As a result there has been chaos.”
The order, signed Jan. 27, banned immigration for 90 days from seven majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It suspended the admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely and all other refugees for 120 days. The president said the pause was needed so the government could evaluate its vetting procedures to protect against terrorism.
“In order to protect Americans, and to advance the national interest, the United States must ensure that we have adequate information about individuals seeking to enter this country to ensure that they do not bear malicious intent toward the United States and its people,” the Department of Homeland Security said Friday.
The order allowed for exceptions in the “national interest,” but lawyers for some travelers described getting one as a Kafkaesque exercise, with the State Department’s website warning that no emergency applications would be heard, and Customs and Border Protection agents at United States airports all but unreachable because their clients were not being allowed to board planes.
Protests over the policy continued on Friday, including a large group that gathered in a parking lot of Kennedy International Airport in New York for a midday Muslim prayer session.
One big question surrounded the number of people who were affected by the travel ban. Besides barring refugees and other visa holders from the seven countries from entering the United States, the administration also revoked, at least temporarily, all visas from the seven countries, including those for people currently living in the United States. The revocations, which were not publicly announced but were revealed during court proceedings, meant that anyone who lost their visa would be unable to re-enter the United States if they left.
The State Department said late Friday that the Justice Department’s 100,000 number also included diplomatic visas, which were untouched by the ban, as well as expired visas from the seven countries. The true number of revoked visas was less than 60,000, the State Department said. “To put that number in context, we issued over 11 million immigrant and nonimmigrant visas in fiscal year 2015,” said William Cocks, a spokesman for the department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs.
The situation in Boston epitomized the confusion around the country. Last Sunday, a federal judge there imposed a seven-day block to the order, and told the government to tell airlines that anyone with a visa from the seven countries should be permitted to enter the country through Boston’s Logan Airport.
That led some stranded travelers to try to rebook flights to Logan, but in numerous cases, they were still told they could not board the planes. Then the German airline Lufthansa said it would began taking passengers to Logan, and a handful successfully landed there Friday afternoon.
“If I didn’t do it today, I probably never could do it,” said Atiyeh Goudarzi, 32, who is from Iran.
Judge Gorton’s decision Friday denied a request by the A.C.L.U. of Massachusetts and the state attorney general, to make permanent the seven-day restraining order, meaning it would expire Sunday morning.
Because the court fights so far have centered on whether judges should impose and keep in place temporary restraining orders, the legal arguments in the last few days have centered on the government’s contention that there is “no potential irreparable harm” to justify keeping the extraordinary orders in place pending fuller briefing and arguments.
It has also played down First Amendment claims by groups who have challenged the order because they want to bring foreigners into the country for speeches or meetings, saying the foreigners could “appear via videoconference or telephone.”
The administration has been criticized for issuing its order without any warning to refugees and visa holders who were on their way to the United States. Some arrived at airports for flights and were turned away.
“This order touched something in the U.S. that I’ve never seen before,” Judge Brinkema said, according to The Associated Press. “People are quite upset.”“This order touched something in the U.S. that I’ve never seen before,” Judge Brinkema said, according to The Associated Press. “People are quite upset.”
The order banned immigration for 90 days from seven majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It suspended the admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely and all other refugees for 120 days. The president said the pause was needed so the government could evaluate its vetting procedures to protect against terrorism. Charles Roth, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, a firm that provides legal services and advocacy for immigrants, said that earlier in the week, two of his clients, a couple from Iran, were denied entry onto a flight bound for Dulles Airport outside Washington after they had received long-awaited permission to enter the country.
The husband and wife had sold their home and quit their jobs in Iran in preparation to move to the United States, Mr. Roth said. He advised them to book a second flight, which is scheduled to fly into Logan Airport in Boston on Saturday evening, just before the temporary restraining order expires. “I don’t know exactly what’s going to happen when they arrive,” Mr. Roth said. “I mean, if they arrive.”