403
Sorry!!
Error! We're sorry, but the page you were looking for doesn't exist.
Federal Court Halts Trump-Era Immigration Restrictions in Major Ruling
(MENAFN) A federal court in Rhode Island has moved to suspend several immigration measures introduced under the Trump administration, which had significantly limited access for many non-citizens to asylum, permanent residency, and other legal immigration pathways in the United States.
In a detailed 135-page decision, the court concluded that the sweeping restrictions on immigration benefits were “contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”
One of the struck-down measures had paused immigration applications from individuals originating from 39 countries included in the administration’s travel ban framework. The policy was justified on national security grounds following an incident in which an Afghan asylum recipient was accused of shooting two National Guard members in Washington, DC.
These rules, implemented late last year, had effectively halted the issuance of green cards, work authorization, citizenship approvals, and other immigration benefits for many nationals from the affected states, most of which are located in Africa and Asia. At one stage, asylum processing through the immigration agency was also frozen across all nationalities. Although processing for most asylum claims later resumed in March, restrictions remained in place for applicants from the 39 designated countries.
The ruling noted that affected applicants “ filed the appropriate paperwork, paid the required filing fees, submitted to the requested biometrics collections, and attended the necessary in-person interviews.”
The decision further criticized the immigration agency’s justification for its actions, stating: "In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of 'national security' that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making," according to the ruling.
In a detailed 135-page decision, the court concluded that the sweeping restrictions on immigration benefits were “contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”
One of the struck-down measures had paused immigration applications from individuals originating from 39 countries included in the administration’s travel ban framework. The policy was justified on national security grounds following an incident in which an Afghan asylum recipient was accused of shooting two National Guard members in Washington, DC.
These rules, implemented late last year, had effectively halted the issuance of green cards, work authorization, citizenship approvals, and other immigration benefits for many nationals from the affected states, most of which are located in Africa and Asia. At one stage, asylum processing through the immigration agency was also frozen across all nationalities. Although processing for most asylum claims later resumed in March, restrictions remained in place for applicants from the 39 designated countries.
The ruling noted that affected applicants “ filed the appropriate paperwork, paid the required filing fees, submitted to the requested biometrics collections, and attended the necessary in-person interviews.”
The decision further criticized the immigration agency’s justification for its actions, stating: "In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of 'national security' that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making," according to the ruling.
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept
any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images,
videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright
issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Most popular stories
Market Research
More Story
Comments
No comment