
An Iranian Student in U.S. Detention Makes a Hard Choice: Stay or Go Home
On the 42nd day of his confinement at an immigration detention center in the pine woods of central Louisiana, Alireza Doroudi seemed to be on the verge of getting out.
A few minutes before his latest immigration hearing last Thursday, the government said it was dropping one of the charges against him. Other international students who, like him, had been detained by the authorities were being released, one by one.
But shortly before the hearing began, Mr. Doroudi's fiancée, Sama Ebrahimi Bajgani, one of the few people who had come to watch, was not hopeful. 'I don't think I can trust anything, to be honest,' she whispered.
A native of Iran, Mr. Doroudi, 32, had been in the country doing doctoral work in mechanical engineering at the University of Alabama. He had no run-ins with the law beyond a couple of traffic citations.
But early in the morning on March 25, U.S. immigration agents showed up at Mr. Doroudi's apartment in Tuscaloosa and took him into custody.
At the time of the arrest, authorities told the news media that Mr. Doroudi posed 'significant national security concerns.' They never elaborated, even in court, Mr. Doroudi's lawyer said. The charges against him only concerned his legal status as an international student.
International students are given visas that allows them to enter the United States, where they then must follow certain rules to stay in the country legally. Mr. Doroudi's case involved two charges: that he was illegally in the country because his visa had been revoked, and that since then, he had failed to maintain legal status to remain in the United States. Mr. Doroudi's lawyer said the visa applied only to his entry into the country — that is, he could not now leave and come back — and that university records showed that he had never lost legal status, even throughout his detention.
Nearly 2,000 students have had their visas canceled by the Trump administration, often related to minor violations, like speeding tickets. Students have challenged the revocations in court, and many visas were restored in recent weeks.
Mr. Doroudi's case was different. His case was one of a handful where the Trump administration cited national security concerns. Some of those students had been outspoken about the Palestinian cause, but it was unclear how Mr. Doroudi, whose fiancée said he was not involved in politics, had drawn the notice of the federal government.
The other cases had prompted protests over criticism that the Trump administration was violating civil rights. There was Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and a legal permanent resident who was detained in early March. And Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University student, who was being held in a detention facility in southern Louisiana. Ms. Ozturk, who was apparently targeted because of a pro-Palestinian essay she co-wrote, was ordered to be released by a federal judge on Friday and walked out of detention to cheering supporters and assembled media.
Mr. Doroudi's case did not attract the same attention.
Hs lawyer, David Rozas, one of Louisiana's few immigration layers, had urged him to fight his detention in federal court.
Mr. Doroudi did not want to. He missed his studies and was not doing well spending his days in a loud group dormitory behind fences and razor wire, his fiancée said. He told her that his vision and hearing were deteriorating, and that his mental health was suffering. And he had grown convinced, his lawyer said, that no matter what happened, the authorities would never let him out.
Mr. Rozas said he had been seeing this more and more from clients in detention. People with strong cases for release, some of whom had lived in the United States for years, were giving up, as hearings were delayed for weeks and as they got the feeling that the country simply did not want them.
But as Mr. Rozas prepared to walk into the hearing for Mr. Doroudi on Thursday, he received an email with some good news. The government had acknowledged in a filing that it did not have evidence to support the charge Mr. Doroudi had been arrested on. It was possible that he could walk free that day.
Courtroom 4, one of several immigration hearing rooms along a narrow hall inside the detention facility, was small, with walls of painted cinder block. The seven benches in the galley were almost empty.
Ms. Bajgani entered and smiled at her fiancé, who sat at the defense table in loose prison clothes.
He looked like he had lost weight, she whispered. Ms. Bajgani had been telling Mr. Doroudi's parents back in Iran, who were beside themselves with worry, that everything would work out. She was not sure she believed that anymore.
'I don't think this is very hopeful,' Ms. Bajgani said.
Judge Maithe Gonzalez entered the courtroom. Within minutes, she said she would sustain the first charge against Mr. Doroudi and was ordering his removal.
After some back and forth, and some prodding from Mr. Rozas, Numa Metoyer, a lawyer for the Department of Homeland Security, explained to the judge that the government had actually been planning to drop that charge, concerning the revocation of the visa. The lawyers had reviewed the evidence and found it did not apply in Mr. Doroudi's case utnil he left the country. But he said that a second charge was still viable, concerning Mr. Doroudi's current immigration status.
Mr. Rozas leaned over to Mr. Doroudi. The second charge wouldn't stand, he whispered. His status was all in order. In federal court, 'you win, 100 percent,' he said.
Mr. Doroudi shook his head. 'No, no, no,' he whispered.
The judge insisted that the government put this into writing. She announced there would be another hearing in Mr. Doroudi's case, in two weeks.
'No, no,' Mr. Doroudi whispered.
Mr. Rozas asked the judge if Mr. Doroudi could be released on bond, but the judge cut him off. 'That's not the way this works,' she said.
Mr. Rozas looked at his client, and then turned to the judge. Mr. Doroudi was requesting to voluntarily leave the country. This was against his advice, Mr. Rozas said. But Mr. Doroudi had had enough.
Judge Gonzalez asked Mr. Doroudi if this was really what he wanted.
'I came here for studying in one of the best countries in the world,' he began, but she cut him off.
She told him he needed to answer yes or no.
'Honestly, I don't want to stay here anymore,' he said. 'This place is not good for me. I want to go home.'
The judge interrupted again. Yes or no?
'Yes,' he said. Ms. Bajgani nodded her head in agreement.
'You have been granted the privilege of voluntarily departing the United States,' Judge Gonzalez said, and then went over some of the logistical details.
'Is this a final decision for you?' she asked.
'Thank you,' Mr. Doroudi said.
'Is that a yes?'
'Yes, your honor.'
She then adjourned the court.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. 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
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump: Ukraine provoked Russian strikes
US President Donald Trump has suggested that Ukraine itself provoked the Russian strikes by conducting Operation Spider's Web. Source: Trump speaking to journalists on board Air Force One Details: Responding to a journalist's question about whether Operation Spider's Web had changed his view of what advantages Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy holds, Trump said it had given Russian leader Vladimir Putin a reason to bomb Ukrainian cities. Quote: "They gave Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night. That's the thing I didn't like about it. When I saw it I said 'Here we go, now it's going to be a strike'." Background: On 1 June 2025, the Security Service of Ukraine carried out a special operation codenamed Pavutyna (Spider's Web) and hit Russian strategic jets at four airfields. Vasyl Maliuk, Head of the Security Service of Ukraine, stated that 34% of strategic carriers of cruise missiles at the main airfields of the Russian Federation had been destroyed. The Security Service of Ukraine officially stated that 41 Russian strategic aircraft had been destroyed by FPV drone strikes, including A-50, Tu-95, Tu-22 M3 and Tu-160 aircraft. The estimated cost of the strategic aircraft destroyed is over US$7 billion. Colonel Ants Kiviselg, Head of the Estonian Defence Forces' Intelligence Centre, reported that the Russian Tu-95 bombers targeted during Operation Spider's Web had been preparing to launch missile strikes on Ukraine. In response to these actions, Russia launched large-scale strikes on Ukraine on the night of 5-6 June, using over 400 drones and 40 cruise and ballistic missiles. The attack resulted in numerous civilian casualties and significant damage to infrastructure. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!

43 minutes ago
Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Association to halt the Trump administration's further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress. But in Friday's ruling, Leon wrote that as much as the 'Court laments the Executive Branch's efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,' recent court decisions suggested that the case should be heard in a separate court dedicated to contractual claims. He cited the Supreme Court's decision allowing the administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money despite a lower court order barring the cuts, saying that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the institute after President Donald Trump signed a March 14 executive order that refers to it and several other federal agencies as 'unnecessary.' The agency's appointed acting director then placed many agency staff members on administrative leave, sent termination notices to most of them, began canceling grants and contracts and fired all members of the National Museum and Library Services Board. The institute has roughly 75 employees and issued more than $266 million in grants last year. However, a Rhode Island judge's order prohibiting the government from shutting down the museum and library services institute in a separate case brought by several states remains in place. The administration is appealing that order as well.