At Least 50 Arizona State Students Have Now Had Visas Revoked, Lawyer Says
In partnership with
This story was first published by Arizona Luminaria.
The number of international students at Arizona State University who have had their visas revoked is now at least 50, according to an attorney representing the students.
Last week, Arizona Luminaria reported on eight students at ASU who had their visas revoked. That number has increased quickly, with at least three students facing some time in immigration detention, according to senior attorney Ami Hutchinson, with Green Evans-Schroeder, the Tucson, Arizona-based law firm representing the students. She said students she's spoken to are confused. 'They're really, really afraid.'
'They still seem to think that someone made a mistake. That it shouldn't have happened and this was just all a misunderstanding,' Hutchinson said.
'They're really, really afraid,' she added.
One ASU student remains in detention, and has been locked up for about 10 days, according to Hutchinson.
An ASU spokesperson would not confirm the number of students. Hutchinson told Arizona Luminaria she estimates the total number of revoked international student visas across the country to be around 1,000, based on other attorneys and firms working in Arizona and other states.
Hutchinson told Arizona Luminaria that ASU is 'being supportive' of the students and has been paying Green Evans-Schroeder for a portion of their consultation fees with the students. ASU did not immediately respond about paying the consultation fees.
A spokesperson for the University of Arizona did not comment last week on whether any UA students have had their visas revoked, saying, 'we care deeply about the safety and well-being of our campus community.'
Arizona Luminaria reached out again to the media office and directly to UA's president, Suresh Garimella, for comment about possible visa revocations. The offices did not immediately respond.
A message March 31 informed UA students: 'Be sure to check your email regularly for updates from U.S. Department of State (DOS). Some messages may include time-sensitive information related to your immigration status, visa compliance requirements, or the impact of any policy changes.'
The UA has recommended that all international students carry a copy of their passport, their visas, and proof of their immigration status on them at all times.
Notice of the visa revocations has been coming to the students via email, Hutchinson said. That has left students confused and unsure of what to do next.
Should they go to class? Should they prepare to leave the country, keep an eye out for federal immigration officers on campus?
Students at ASU who have had their visas revoked may still be able to go to classes, but Hutchinson said multiple students were set to graduate this spring and will not be able to obtain their degree.
'They can't do that now, and so it just throws away many years of their studies,' Hutchinson said.
Hutchinson laid out other potential options for the students. They can wait and see what happens next, even if that risks possible detention and/or deportation. Or they can file a lawsuit, claiming that the U.S. government didn't follow the proper procedures in canceling their visas. They can also request to have their status reinstated, though Hutchinson said that may not be viable for many of the students given the current political climate.
'The growing number of visa revocations at Arizona universities and across the country is part of the Trump administration's disturbing efforts to silence dissent, target immigrants, and undermine the pillars of a free society,' Noah Schramm, a policy strategist at the ACLU of Arizona, told Arizona Luminaria. 'The ACLU of Arizona unequivocally condemns the targeting of non-citizen students through the abuse of immigration authority and as punishment for protected expression.'
Read Our Complete Coverage
The student who remains in immigration detention had a known conviction for driving under the influence from years ago, according to Hutchinson.
Hutchinson said the student was nearly done with their studies. At this point, they are willing to go home if that means they can get out of detention.
According to Hutchinson, the student said they want to leave the country and never come back because they want to go somewhere where they are treated with dignity and respect.
Arizona Luminaria reached out to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that issues visas, as well as the State Department, for comment. Luminaria also asked for the students' nationalities and why their visas were revoked.
Officials with the federal agencies did not immediately respond.
In March, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights sent a letter to 60 colleges and universities 'warning them of potential enforcement actions' if they don't protect Jewish students on campus.
Hutchinson said attorneys in Arizona and other states representing students with revoked visas are wondering whether students who protested the war in Gaza, or engaged in other forms of political activity, at these institutions are being targeted.
She added that all of the students they've worked with are from India, China, or Muslim-majority countries.
Applying for a student visa to study in the United States is a complex process that is both expensive and laborious. Besides paying hundreds of dollars in fees, getting interviewed, and obtaining the visa and booking travel, students must acquire and maintain active status in the 'Student and Exchange Visitor Information System' database, known as SEVIS.
A lawsuit filed April 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleges that hundreds of students across the country have had their SEVIS status 'abruptly and unlawfully terminated.' 'Until recently, government policy generally allowed these students to remain in the United States and continue their studies.'
Immigration and Customs Enforcement revoked the SEVIS status of several of the ASU students. They were told that was because of their failure to maintain legal status in the country, Hutchinson said. That's because, in a sort of circular logic, the State Department canceled their student visas.
A letter developed by Green Evans-Schroeder explaining to students why their visa may have been revoked offers a bit of recent historical context.
'In the past, it has been relatively common for international students who were arrested, charged, or even convicted of minor offenses — typically misdemeanors — to receive notices that their student visas had been revoked,' according to the letter. 'However, until recently, government policy generally allowed these students to remain in the United States and continue their studies until their Form I-20 expired.'
Hutchinson said Green Evans-Schroeder and other firms were considering joining or filing lawsuits, as well as possibly filing a class-action suit.
The hope is to bring these lawsuits not only saying that the government messed up and 'did not do what they're supposed to do, but also, the underlying basis is bizarre and unlawful,' Hutchinson said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What to know about inspections of Iran's nuclear program by the IAEA ahead of a key board vote
VIENNA (AP) — Iran's nuclear program remains a top focus for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, particularly as any possible deal between Tehran and the United States over the program would likely rely on the agency long known as the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. This week, Western nations will push for a measure at the IAEA's Board of Governors censuring Iran over its noncompliance with inspectors, pushing the matter before the U.N. Security Council. Barring any deal with Washington, Iran then could face what's known as 'snapback' — the reimposition of all U.N. sanctions on it originally lifted by Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, if one of its Western parties declares the Islamic Republic is out of compliance with it. All this sets the stage for a renewed confrontation with Iran as the Mideast remains inflamed by Israel's war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And the IAEA's work in any case will make the Vienna-based agency a key player. Here's more to know about the IAEA, its inspections of Iran and the deals — and dangers — at play. Atoms for peace The IAEA was created in 1957. The idea for it grew out of a 1953 speech given by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the U.N., in which he urged the creation of an agency to monitor the world's nuclear stockpiles to ensure that 'the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life." Broadly speaking, the agency verifies the reported stockpiles of member nations. Those nations are divided into three categories. The vast majority are nations with so-called 'comprehensive safeguards agreements" with the IAEA, states without nuclear weapons that allow IAE monitoring over all nuclear material and activities. Then there's the 'voluntary offer agreements' with the world's original nuclear weapons states — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. — typically for civilian sites. Finally, the IAEA has 'item-specific agreements' with India, Israel and Pakistan — nuclear-armed countries that haven't signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That treaty has countries agree not to build or obtain nuclear weapons. North Korea, which is also nuclear armed, said it has withdrawn from the treaty, though that's disputed by some experts. The collapse of Iran's 2015 nuclear deal Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, negotiated under then-President Barack Obama, allowed Iran to enrich uranium to 3.67% — enough to fuel a nuclear power plant but far below the threshold of 90% needed for weapons-grade uranium. It also drastically reduced Iran's stockpile of uranium, limited its use of centrifuges and relied on the IAEA to oversee Tehran's compliance through additional oversight. But President Donald Trump in his first term in 2018 unilaterally withdrew America from the accord, insisting it wasn't tough enough and didn't address Iran's missile program or its support for militant groups in the wider Mideast. That set in motion years of tensions, including attacks at sea and on land. Iran now enriches up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels. It also has enough of a stockpile to build multiple nuclear bombs, should it choose to do so. Iran has long insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the IAEA, Western intelligence agencies and others say Tehran had an organized weapons program up until 2003. IAEA inspections and Iran Under the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to allow the IAEA even greater access to its nuclear program. That included permanently installing cameras and sensors at nuclear sites. Those cameras, inside of metal housings sprayed with a special blue paint that shows any attempt to tamper with it, took still images of sensitive sites. Other devices, known as online enrichment monitors, measured the uranium enrichment level at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility. The IAEA also regularly sent inspectors into Iranian sites to conduct surveys, sometimes collecting environmental samples with cotton clothes and swabs that would be tested at IAEA labs back in Austria. Others monitor Iranian sites via satellite images. In the years since Trump's 2018 decision, Iran has limited IAEA inspections and stopped the agency from accessing camera footage. It's also removed cameras. At one point, Iran accused an IAEA inspector of testing positive for explosive nitrates, something the agency disputed. The IAEA has engaged in years of negotiations with Iran to restore full access for its inspectors. While Tehran hasn't granted that, it also hasn't entirely thrown inspectors out. Analysts view this as part of Iran's wider strategy to use its nuclear program as a bargaining chip with the West. What happens next Iran and the U.S. have gone through five rounds of negotiations over a possible deal, with talks mediated by the sultanate of Oman. Iran appears poised to reject an American proposal over a deal this week, potentially as soon as Tuesday. Without a deal with the U.S., Iran's long-ailing economy could enter a freefall that could worsen the simmering unrest at home. Israel or the U.S. might carry out long-threatened airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. Experts fear Tehran in response could decide to fully end its cooperation with the IAEA, abandon the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and rush toward a bomb. If a deal is reached — or at least a tentative understanding between the two sides — that likely will take the pressure off for an immediate military strike by the U.S. Gulf Arab states, which opposed Obama's negotiations with Iran in 2015, now welcome the talks under Trump. Any agreement would require the IAEA's inspectors to verify Iran's compliance. But Israel, which has struck at Iranian-backed militants across the region, remains a wildcard on what it could do. Last year, it carried out its first military airstrikes on Iran — and has warned it is willing to take action alone to target Tehran's program, like it has in the past in Iraq in 1981 or Syria in 2007. ___
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about inspections of Iran's nuclear program by the IAEA ahead of a key board vote
VIENNA (AP) — Iran's nuclear program remains a top focus for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, particularly as any possible deal between Tehran and the United States over the program would likely rely on the agency long known as the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. This week, Western nations will push for a measure at the IAEA's Board of Governors censuring Iran over its noncompliance with inspectors, pushing the matter before the U.N. Security Council. Barring any deal with Washington, Iran then could face what's known as 'snapback' — the reimposition of all U.N. sanctions on it originally lifted by Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, if one of its Western parties declares the Islamic Republic is out of compliance with it. All this sets the stage for a renewed confrontation with Iran as the Mideast remains inflamed by Israel's war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip . And the IAEA's work in any case will make the Vienna-based agency a key player. Here's more to know about the IAEA, its inspections of Iran and the deals — and dangers — at play. Atoms for peace The IAEA was created in 1957. The idea for it grew out of a 1953 speech given by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the U.N., in which he urged the creation of an agency to monitor the world's nuclear stockpiles to ensure that 'the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.' Broadly speaking, the agency verifies the reported stockpiles of member nations. Those nations are divided into three categories. The vast majority are nations with so-called 'comprehensive safeguards agreements' with the IAEA, states without nuclear weapons that allow IAE monitoring over all nuclear material and activities. Then there's the 'voluntary offer agreements' with the world's original nuclear weapons states — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. — typically for civilian sites. Finally, the IAEA has 'item-specific agreements' with India, Israel and Pakistan — nuclear-armed countries that haven't signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That treaty has countries agree not to build or obtain nuclear weapons. North Korea, which is also nuclear armed, said it has withdrawn from the treaty, though that's disputed by some experts. The collapse of Iran's 2015 nuclear deal Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, negotiated under then-President Barack Obama, allowed Iran to enrich uranium to 3.67% — enough to fuel a nuclear power plant but far below the threshold of 90% needed for weapons-grade uranium. It also drastically reduced Iran's stockpile of uranium, limited its use of centrifuges and relied on the IAEA to oversee Tehran's compliance through additional oversight. But President Donald Trump in his first term in 2018 unilaterally withdrew America from the accord , insisting it wasn't tough enough and didn't address Iran's missile program or its support for militant groups in the wider Mideast. That set in motion years of tensions, including attacks at sea and on land . Iran now enriches up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels. It also has enough of a stockpile to build multiple nuclear bombs, should it choose to do so. Iran has long insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the IAEA, Western intelligence agencies and others say Tehran had an organized weapons program up until 2003. IAEA inspections and Iran Under the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to allow the IAEA even greater access to its nuclear program. That included permanently installing cameras and sensors at nuclear sites. Those cameras, inside of metal housings sprayed with a special blue paint that shows any attempt to tamper with it, took still images of sensitive sites. Other devices, known as online enrichment monitors, measured the uranium enrichment level at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility. The IAEA also regularly sent inspectors into Iranian sites to conduct surveys, sometimes collecting environmental samples with cotton clothes and swabs that would be tested at IAEA labs back in Austria. Others monitor Iranian sites via satellite images. In the years since Trump's 2018 decision, Iran has limited IAEA inspections and stopped the agency from accessing camera footage . It's also removed cameras . At one point, Iran accused an IAEA inspector of testing positive for explosive nitrates , something the agency disputed. The IAEA has engaged in years of negotiations with Iran to restore full access for its inspectors. While Tehran hasn't granted that, it also hasn't entirely thrown inspectors out. Analysts view this as part of Iran's wider strategy to use its nuclear program as a bargaining chip with the West. What happens next Iran and the U.S. have gone through five rounds of negotiations over a possible deal, with talks mediated by the sultanate of Oman . Iran appears poised to reject an American proposal over a deal this week, potentially as soon as Tuesday. Without a deal with the U.S., Iran's long-ailing economy could enter a freefall that could worsen the simmering unrest at home. Israel or the U.S. might carry out long-threatened airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. Experts fear Tehran in response could decide to fully end its cooperation with the IAEA, abandon the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and rush toward a bomb. If a deal is reached — or at least a tentative understanding between the two sides — that likely will take the pressure off for an immediate military strike by the U.S. Gulf Arab states, which opposed Obama's negotiations with Iran in 2015, now welcome the talks under Trump. Any agreement would require the IAEA's inspectors to verify Iran's compliance. But Israel, which has struck at Iranian-backed militants across the region, remains a wildcard on what it could do. Last year, it carried out its first military airstrikes on Iran — and has warned it is willing to take action alone to target Tehran's program, like it has in the past in Iraq in 1981 or Syria in 2007. ___ Associated Press writer Stephanie Liechtenstein contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation . The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape: Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Loaded weapon': editors decry Hungary bill targeting media
The Hungarian government's decision to delay a vote on a controversial bill which penalises "foreign-funded" media and NGOs does not mean that the danger to freedom of the press is over, top editors warn. The government is still committed to a "campaign to shut down, destroy or discredit certain media outlets, NGOs or people", Peter Uj, editor-in-chief of news site 444, told AFP. Critics say the bill, which they compare to Russia's foreign agent legislation, is the latest attempt by nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban to tighten his control over the central European country of 9.5 million people since his return to power in 2010. Tens of thousands have protested against the bill in Budapest, with another rally to take place on Tuesday. The European Commission has also called on Hungary to withdraw the draft, while representatives of more than 80 media outlets from 22 countries -- including Britain's The Guardian and France's Liberation -- have slammed it. The bill was introduced last month and a vote was scheduled for this week, but the ruling coalition last week put it off, saying that debate would continue in the autumn and that it wanted to review "substantive comments received" from "serious organisations" other than those protesting. - 'Devious' - The legislation would blacklist organisations that "threaten the sovereignty of Hungary by using foreign funding to influence public life". Any kind of support from non-Hungarian citizens, EU funds, or even advertising revenues from companies based abroad constitutes foreign funding, according to commonly accepted legal interpretations. Blacklisted groups would need permission to receive foreign funds. They would also be barred from receiving donations through a Hungarian income tax contribution scheme, an important source of revenue for non-profits. The legal changes could affect any independent Hungarian media outlets, with 444, internet TV Partizan and news site Telex explicitly targeted. Partizan editor-in-chief Marton Gulyas, 39, described the new bill as "devious". "The law would create economic tools to make it impossible for listed organisations to function," he told AFP. The online channel, which was founded in 2018 and has a staff of 70, was the top beneficiary last year of the income tax contribution scheme, receiving more than one million euros ($1.1 million) from over 35,000 supporters. Gulyas rejected the notion that Partizan is "foreign-funded", stressing that the channel had only applied for EU-based grants in the past two years. "Hungary has been a part of the European Union since 2004. There are no borders or customs, yet this money is now being treated as if there could be some kind of criminality involved," he said. - 'Will not back down' - Telex editor-in-chief Tamas Nemet, 44, said that advertising and reader support make up 92 percent of the outlet's revenue. "But the law would now make those unviable" through various legal hurdles and administrative burdens, according to Nemet. One of Hungary's most popular news sources with a staff of around 100, Telex was established in 2021, after Nemet and his colleagues resigned en masse from the country's then-top news site, over alleged political interference. "We can see quite clearly what those in power want, the weapon is loaded and on the table," he said, adding that the "truth cannot be banned". "We will not back down," he said, vowing to "overcome whatever they come up with to hinder our operations". Orban says the law is needed to fight the alleged spread of foreign interference and disinformation. Uj of 444, along with his colleagues from Telex and Partizan, described the bill as "absurd" and "a political weapon designed to keep independent media in constant fear and to take us out". He decried rules "worded in such a way they are impossible to comply with". The 53-year-old Uj and colleagues set up the news site in 2013. It employs about 35 journalists and has broken several stories, including a child abuse pardon scandal, which last year led to the resignation of then-president Katalin Novak, a key Orban ally. AFP partners with its sister site Lakmusz for fact-checking. ros/jza/gv/bc
