Executive orders banning entry to US ... [merged threads]
Jul 7, 2017, 1:30 am
#541
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Lower courts are anything but inclined to push back in any material way against SCOTUS on rather contemporary rulings, so it should have been sort of expected.
Jul 7, 2017, 7:56 am
#542
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 364
There are now confirmed cases of visas being approved but "withheld" by Yerevan. I don't know if "withheld" is the exact word used by the conoff - the dialogue has been translated into Farsi and back into English - but if so that may mean that there is some glimmer of hope that the diversity visas could in theory be considered "approved" by the cutoff date and merely be delivered post-9/30.
While I can't claim any professional expertise on security or consular matters, it sure seems like State could have avoided much of the current mess involving the blacklist diversity visas by simply processing their cases a little faster while the window was open, knowing very well the situation at hand.
In other news, new polling shows rather broad support for the implementation of the stay, including 41% of Democrats (see page 64 for the breakout by demographics). That's a tough pill for many of us in the affected communities to swallow...
While I can't claim any professional expertise on security or consular matters, it sure seems like State could have avoided much of the current mess involving the blacklist diversity visas by simply processing their cases a little faster while the window was open, knowing very well the situation at hand.
In other news, new polling shows rather broad support for the implementation of the stay, including 41% of Democrats (see page 64 for the breakout by demographics). That's a tough pill for many of us in the affected communities to swallow...
Jul 7, 2017, 2:46 pm
#543
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,647
In the Los Angeles Times:
Trump administration extends travel ban deadline for refugee admissions
Excerpts
Excerpts
***
When the ban was put into place last week, the administration said refugees who had booked travel would be admitted through Thursday. After that, immigration officials would block all refugees, except those who could prove they had U.S. connections, such as close relatives.
The July 6 date was a government estimate of when the country would reach a 50,000-person cap on refugee admissions this fiscal year. Federal officials now estimate that the cap will be hit a week later, according to refugee groups. State Department figures show that 49,225 refugees had arrived in the U.S. as of June 30.
***
"The cap could be hit earlier, so it could be earlier than July 12," said Mark Hetfield, chief executive of the resettlement group HIAS, formerly known as Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
***
When the ban was put into place last week, the administration said refugees who had booked travel would be admitted through Thursday. After that, immigration officials would block all refugees, except those who could prove they had U.S. connections, such as close relatives.
The July 6 date was a government estimate of when the country would reach a 50,000-person cap on refugee admissions this fiscal year. Federal officials now estimate that the cap will be hit a week later, according to refugee groups. State Department figures show that 49,225 refugees had arrived in the U.S. as of June 30.
***
"The cap could be hit earlier, so it could be earlier than July 12," said Mark Hetfield, chief executive of the resettlement group HIAS, formerly known as Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
***
Jul 7, 2017, 3:04 pm
#544
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 364
This email was forwarded along by an Iranian diversity applicant. I'm posting it here to give those interested a feel for what communication has been like for those affected. It appears that the email originated from a generic no-reply mailbox associated with defense contractor Pacific Architects and Engineers (PAE), which I had never heard of before (the perennially-incompetent Computer Sciences Corporation seems to be State's go-to contractor for communicating with visa applicants) but may very well have a slice of the agency's "global support strategy" contract.
The email appears to be, in part, a warning that there will be no refunds if people are denied a visa on account of EO 13780, though it doesn't really give applicants the option of rescheduling for a later date to see how things play out. It also clarifies that diversity visa winners can claim a waiver on the basis of family ties to the US even though their visa is not officially sponsored by a family member, which should be a huge relief to some of the remaining applicants.
Of course, it would be great if PAE or State or anybody else could give some more details about how exactly one goes about establishing bona fide relationships, including what is required of stakeholders stateside. I'm suggesting notarized affidavits, as that is what Citizenship and Immigration Services seems to like when processing immigration cases and State seems to be borrowing from their playbook in defining what constitutes a bona fide relationship. But, I really shouldn't be a source of legal advice for folks like the poor recipient of this message...
The email appears to be, in part, a warning that there will be no refunds if people are denied a visa on account of EO 13780, though it doesn't really give applicants the option of rescheduling for a later date to see how things play out. It also clarifies that diversity visa winners can claim a waiver on the basis of family ties to the US even though their visa is not officially sponsored by a family member, which should be a huge relief to some of the remaining applicants.
Of course, it would be great if PAE or State or anybody else could give some more details about how exactly one goes about establishing bona fide relationships, including what is required of stakeholders stateside. I'm suggesting notarized affidavits, as that is what Citizenship and Immigration Services seems to like when processing immigration cases and State seems to be borrowing from their playbook in defining what constitutes a bona fide relationship. But, I really shouldn't be a source of legal advice for folks like the poor recipient of this message...
You have a diversity visa (DV) application interview appointment scheduled and have identified your “Foreign State of Chargeability” as one of the six countries affected by Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen).
On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed travel restrictions in Section 2(c) of the Executive Order to go into effect, in part. Under the Court’s order, a visa applicant from one of the six affected countries who does not have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person (i.e., a close familial relationship) in the United States or of a bona fide relationship with an entity in the United States (which relationship is formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than to evade the Executive Order) is ineligible for a visa unless the applicant qualifies for an exemption or waiver under the Executive Order. Many DV applicants from the six affected countries will not be eligible for an exemption or a waiver under the Executive Order and, therefore, will not be eligible for a visa.
Your scheduled DV application interview at the designated embassy or consulate will not change because of this development. We encourage you to again review the requirements for the DV program on travel.state.gov. If you plan to attend your DV appointment, please bring information that could support your eligibility for a visa and demonstrate that you have a “credible claim to a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” that would allow you to qualify for visa issuance, as explained above. If you do not have such a credible claim, you may choose not to attend your visa interview. Please be aware that the application fee is required for you and any family members who will also apply for visas at the time of the application interview.
If you do not qualify for the visa, no refunds will be given regardless of the reason that you do not qualify (i.e., you do not qualify for the DV program, you are ineligible for a visa, or you are affected by the restrictions placed by the Executive Order).
If you have any additional questions, please contact the consular section at the Embassy or consulate where your interview is scheduled.
________________________________________
Jennifer
Support Contractor – PAE
On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed travel restrictions in Section 2(c) of the Executive Order to go into effect, in part. Under the Court’s order, a visa applicant from one of the six affected countries who does not have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person (i.e., a close familial relationship) in the United States or of a bona fide relationship with an entity in the United States (which relationship is formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than to evade the Executive Order) is ineligible for a visa unless the applicant qualifies for an exemption or waiver under the Executive Order. Many DV applicants from the six affected countries will not be eligible for an exemption or a waiver under the Executive Order and, therefore, will not be eligible for a visa.
Your scheduled DV application interview at the designated embassy or consulate will not change because of this development. We encourage you to again review the requirements for the DV program on travel.state.gov. If you plan to attend your DV appointment, please bring information that could support your eligibility for a visa and demonstrate that you have a “credible claim to a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” that would allow you to qualify for visa issuance, as explained above. If you do not have such a credible claim, you may choose not to attend your visa interview. Please be aware that the application fee is required for you and any family members who will also apply for visas at the time of the application interview.
If you do not qualify for the visa, no refunds will be given regardless of the reason that you do not qualify (i.e., you do not qualify for the DV program, you are ineligible for a visa, or you are affected by the restrictions placed by the Executive Order).
If you have any additional questions, please contact the consular section at the Embassy or consulate where your interview is scheduled.
________________________________________
Jennifer
Support Contractor – PAE
Jul 8, 2017, 10:57 am
#545
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
The 9th Circuit judges refused to take up Hawaii's appeal. So SCOTUS' partial stay of the injunction remains in place and means the same thing now as at this time last week. In other words, grandparents and grandchildren are still out of luck.
Jul 10, 2017, 1:27 am
#546
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: gate lice
Posts: 315
<deleted>
The only thing that the ban would have successfully accomplished would be to bar students and professionals from contributing to American universities and American companies. Why did dozens of universities and over 200 large firms file amicus briefs against the travel ban? Are they suicidal? Are they part of an elitist, globalist conspiracy to bring sharia law to the United States? Probably not.
That, and serve as a political circus for the same crowd of gullible Americans I mentioned earlier.
I'm glad that SCOTUS found a way to accommodate the needs of those institutions in its ruling, but the truth is that the travel ban is unnecessary. Regardless of its legality, the re-revised travel ban continues to disrupt tourism and deters certain family members from meeting, simply because one had the misfortune of being born in the wrong set of GPS coordinates.
The only thing that the ban would have successfully accomplished would be to bar students and professionals from contributing to American universities and American companies. Why did dozens of universities and over 200 large firms file amicus briefs against the travel ban? Are they suicidal? Are they part of an elitist, globalist conspiracy to bring sharia law to the United States? Probably not.
That, and serve as a political circus for the same crowd of gullible Americans I mentioned earlier.
I'm glad that SCOTUS found a way to accommodate the needs of those institutions in its ruling, but the truth is that the travel ban is unnecessary. Regardless of its legality, the re-revised travel ban continues to disrupt tourism and deters certain family members from meeting, simply because one had the misfortune of being born in the wrong set of GPS coordinates.
Last edited by TWA884; Jul 13, 2017 at 4:18 pm Reason: Remove quotes, references of and response to deleted posts
Jul 11, 2017, 11:34 am
#547
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 364
Local media in Boston is reporting that a family of blacklist nationality is being turned away at BOS today. News coverage is implying that it may be related to EO 13780 and/or the tightening of consular screening in recent months.
There could, of course, be some other explanation for Dr. Dehnavi's predicament. However, the academic institutions in the Longwood Medical Area have a fairly deep well of institutional knowledge about the J-1 program, so I doubt that there was an issue on their end. Moreover, a family traveling with three children would seem unlikely to be flagged as a security risk. I find one of the reports that a colleague was told that Dr. Dehnavi would need to "speak to the State Department to complete additional paperwork" to be very, very troubling. If they wanted more information from him prior to travel, it seems like it would have been very easy to contact him or prevent him from boarding...
There could, of course, be some other explanation for Dr. Dehnavi's predicament. However, the academic institutions in the Longwood Medical Area have a fairly deep well of institutional knowledge about the J-1 program, so I doubt that there was an issue on their end. Moreover, a family traveling with three children would seem unlikely to be flagged as a security risk. I find one of the reports that a colleague was told that Dr. Dehnavi would need to "speak to the State Department to complete additional paperwork" to be very, very troubling. If they wanted more information from him prior to travel, it seems like it would have been very easy to contact him or prevent him from boarding...
Jul 13, 2017, 9:45 am
#548
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 364
On the Dehnavi case from two days ago, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what happened. However, subsequent reporting makes it sound as if it was not an attempt to implement 13780. Just a theory at this point, but it's possible that he was attempting to re-enter on a single entry visa without appropriate re-validation, and for whatever reason CBP decided to take a PR backlash in the local academic community rather than permit a deferred inspection.
A US-funded news source is also claiming this morning that he may have had ties to a radical faction in Iran. The NY Post goes a step further by claiming that he was a "militia fighter," though the AP wire story under the headline does not claim evidence of any direct involvement in combat. AFAIK, past involvement in an ROTC-like student paramilitary group shouldn't lead to automatic inadmissibility in and of itself, even if the country involved is on the state sponsorship list - though there certainly would be problems if such involvement was not disclosed on the DS-160/260 and came to light at a later date.
As for the diversity visa interviews, it seems that there is a glimmer of hope that State is not taking the harshest possible interpretation of the bonafide relationships provision in the stay. Applicants are being told at their interviews that they may still be able to obtain visas if they can submit proof of a job offer or post-secondary enrollment in the US prior to the end of the diversity visa cycle. Thus, it seems that State is correctly interpreting (in my opinion) the intent of the Supreme Court by allowing for the possibility that relationships "formed in the ordinary course of events rather than to evade the executive order itself" do not necessarily exclude relationships formed after June 29th as long as one can argue that they may have occurred under normal circumstances.
If anyone out there might have a job in the US for a manufacturing manager with a bachelor's degree and several years of work experience in Iran, please PM me!
I've also heard that State is physically annotating all visas issued to blacklist nationals indicating that their visas are being granted pursuant to a waiver to EO 13780. I don't understand what practical purpose an annotation would serve at this point - it reminds me vaguely of UA using an orange background on the boarding passes of basic economy tickets purchased by individuals otherwise exempt from the baggage restrictions associated with BE fares. I'll try to post a photo of the annotation if I can photoshop out identifying information.
A US-funded news source is also claiming this morning that he may have had ties to a radical faction in Iran. The NY Post goes a step further by claiming that he was a "militia fighter," though the AP wire story under the headline does not claim evidence of any direct involvement in combat. AFAIK, past involvement in an ROTC-like student paramilitary group shouldn't lead to automatic inadmissibility in and of itself, even if the country involved is on the state sponsorship list - though there certainly would be problems if such involvement was not disclosed on the DS-160/260 and came to light at a later date.
As for the diversity visa interviews, it seems that there is a glimmer of hope that State is not taking the harshest possible interpretation of the bonafide relationships provision in the stay. Applicants are being told at their interviews that they may still be able to obtain visas if they can submit proof of a job offer or post-secondary enrollment in the US prior to the end of the diversity visa cycle. Thus, it seems that State is correctly interpreting (in my opinion) the intent of the Supreme Court by allowing for the possibility that relationships "formed in the ordinary course of events rather than to evade the executive order itself" do not necessarily exclude relationships formed after June 29th as long as one can argue that they may have occurred under normal circumstances.
If anyone out there might have a job in the US for a manufacturing manager with a bachelor's degree and several years of work experience in Iran, please PM me!
I've also heard that State is physically annotating all visas issued to blacklist nationals indicating that their visas are being granted pursuant to a waiver to EO 13780. I don't understand what practical purpose an annotation would serve at this point - it reminds me vaguely of UA using an orange background on the boarding passes of basic economy tickets purchased by individuals otherwise exempt from the baggage restrictions associated with BE fares. I'll try to post a photo of the annotation if I can photoshop out identifying information.
Jul 13, 2017, 4:06 pm
#549
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,647
Moderator's Note: Please let's get back on topic
This thread has been drifting into OMNI/PR territory.
Posts discussing political issues that are not cogent to border policy have been deleted.
TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
Posts discussing political issues that are not cogent to border policy have been deleted.
TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
Jul 14, 2017, 3:42 am
#550
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Federal judge in Hawaii has now said that grandparents and some other bona fide relatives should be exempted from this travel ban under the SCOTUS' interim rule.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...i-ruling/2500/
In other words, grandparents and grandchildren are no longer out of luck. According to the judge this time, grandparents are the epitome of close family and no longer are to be discriminated against in the way that has been in place for most of the time since the SCOTUS gave a partial stay to the injunction against the EO.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...i-ruling/2500/
In other words, grandparents and grandchildren are no longer out of luck. According to the judge this time, grandparents are the epitome of close family and no longer are to be discriminated against in the way that has been in place for most of the time since the SCOTUS gave a partial stay to the injunction against the EO.
Last edited by GUWonder; Jul 14, 2017 at 4:32 am
Aug 9, 2017, 1:07 pm
#551
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GAI
Programs: TK *G, all statuses that come with Ritz, Amex Plat, Citi Prestige cards
Posts: 364
Does anyone know anything at all about what demands have been made to the blacklist governments? We should be well into the 50 day response period that was to follow the 20 day review at this point, but I can't find any details about what is being formally requested of Iran or any other country.
Thankfully I'm not personally involved, but there is a lawsuit out there on behalf of the diversity visa winners not otherwise eligible for a waiver. Rather than take what I thought would be a more logical approach of arguing that the lottery established a bonafide relationship in and of itself, they're going for a literal reading of 13780 and saying that visa issuance can continue even while entry is banned. It's a bizarre chain of logic in my opinion - the only practical reason for attaining a visa is to enable lawful entry - but anything is worth a shot at this point for folks up against the September 30th annual deadline for the diversity visa program.
Also, some may be interested to know that CBP has finally coughed up some internal emails via FOIA related to the initial implementation of 13769. Interesting or infuriating reading, depending on how close to home it hits...
Thankfully I'm not personally involved, but there is a lawsuit out there on behalf of the diversity visa winners not otherwise eligible for a waiver. Rather than take what I thought would be a more logical approach of arguing that the lottery established a bonafide relationship in and of itself, they're going for a literal reading of 13780 and saying that visa issuance can continue even while entry is banned. It's a bizarre chain of logic in my opinion - the only practical reason for attaining a visa is to enable lawful entry - but anything is worth a shot at this point for folks up against the September 30th annual deadline for the diversity visa program.
Also, some may be interested to know that CBP has finally coughed up some internal emails via FOIA related to the initial implementation of 13769. Interesting or infuriating reading, depending on how close to home it hits...
Last edited by lonelycrowd; Aug 9, 2017 at 1:24 pm Reason: Typo
Aug 9, 2017, 9:44 pm
#552
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: gate lice
Posts: 315
Also, some may be interested to know that CBP has finally coughed up some internal emails via FOIA related to the initial implementation of 13769. Interesting or infuriating reading, depending on how close to home it hits...
Aug 30, 2017, 11:11 pm
#553
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Some interesting emails provide background on what was going on at USCIS due to the EO:
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2...uartz_foia.pdf
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2...uartz_foia.pdf
Sep 1, 2017, 2:58 am
#554
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
The Admin's Justice Department and ACLU have reached a settlement over part of the legal challenges against the EO (and its revised version).
https://nypost.com/2017/08/29/aclu-d...mp-travel-ban/
https://nypost.com/2017/08/29/aclu-d...mp-travel-ban/
Sep 8, 2017, 9:21 am
#555
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: gate lice
Posts: 315
9th circuit agrees with district court of Hawaii's ruling.
Hawkins, Gould, and Paez are all Clinton appointees. Admin plans to appeal to SCOTUS to clarify "bona-fide relationship".
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...vel-ban-242461
Hawkins, Gould, and Paez are all Clinton appointees. Admin plans to appeal to SCOTUS to clarify "bona-fide relationship".
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...vel-ban-242461