US revokes visas from 15 international students at UCF, detains one
Courtney Gilmartin, a UCF spokesperson, confirmed the revocations, saying the 15 students in the United States on F-1 student visas have had their visas revoked since March 25 based on records from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
They were flagged for criminal records or 'otherwise failing to maintain' their visa status but no additional information was available on their cases, including why the one student was detained, Gilmartin said.
UCF notified each student of their visa termination and advised them to leave the country, she added.
The university, Florida's largest by enrollment, enrolls about 5,000 international students, according to its website.
The Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration has led to the revocation of thousands of international students' visas nationwide, apparently in some cases because students took part in campus protests against the war in Gaza or in others because of minor run-ins with law enforcement, including traffic infractions.
As of Thursday, more than 1,700 international students nationwide have had their visas revoked, according to Inside Higher Ed, including eight at the University of Florida, three at Florida State University and 18 at Florida International University.
At UF, Felipe Zapata Velázquez was deported to Colombia following a traffic stop where police found he was driving with a suspended license and registration, according to the student news publication Fresh Take Florida. His family said at the time he was renewing his student visa, but it was not clear he had a currently valid one.
Talat Rahman, UCF's faculty union president and trustee chair, said a student in her department was notified of their visa termination and has already returned to India.
Rahman, who came from Pakistan to study in the U.S. on a student visa, said the visa cancellations have 'never been done before' on this scale. Now a U.S. citizen, Rahman said the revocations worry her since students had no due process and might be forced to leave the country because of a traffic ticket or for exercising their First Amendment rights.
And it makes all international students fearful, she said.
'It's essentially saying, 'Hey, you're not welcome,'' Rahman said.
-------------
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to 'anti-Americanism' screening
Immigrants seeking a legal pathway to live and work in the United States will now be subject to screening for 'anti-Americanism',' authorities said Tuesday, raising concerns among critics that it gives officers too much leeway in rejecting foreigners based on a subjective judgment. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused" anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views. 'America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' Matthew Tragesser, USCIS spokesman, said in a statement. 'Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right.' It isn't specified what constitutes anti-Americanism and it isn't clear how and when the directive would be applied. 'The message is that the U.S. and immigration agencies are going to be less tolerant of anti-Americanism or antisemitism when making immigration decisions," Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, said on Tuesday. Jacobs said the government is being more explicit in the kind of behaviors and practices officers should consider, but emphasized that discretion is still in place. "The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny — just to consider it as a negative discretion,' she said. Critics worry the policy update will allow for more subjective views of what is considered anti-American and allow an officer's personal bias to cloud his or her judgment. 'For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That's really worrisome," said Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University. The policy changes follow others recently implemented since the start of the Trump administration including social media vetting and the most recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for 'good moral character'. That will not only consider 'not simply the absence of misconduct' but also factor the applicant's positive attributes and contributions. 'It means you are going to just do a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards,' Lopez said. Experts disagree on the constitutionality of the policy involving people who are not U.S. citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the U.S. or who are not U.S. citizens. Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, against government encroachment. 'A lot of this administration's activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,' Robinson added. Attorneys are advising clients to adjust their expectations. 'People need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to U.S. citizens are not going to apply to somebody who's trying to enter the United States," said Jaime Diez, an immigration attorney based in Brownsville, Texas. Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, said the policy update was not unexpected considering how the Trump administration approaches immigration. 'This is what was elected. They're allowed to interpret the rules the way they want,' Grode said. 'The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fifth Circuit halts West Texas A&M drag show ban as free speech lawsuit continues
A federal appeals court Monday blocked West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler from enforcing a campus drag show ban, ruling that the performances are likely protected under the First Amendment. The 2-1 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a lower court's decision upholding Wendler's 2023 cancellation of a drag show, which he argued was demeaning to women and compared to blackface. The decision means Spectrum WT, the student group that brought the lawsuit, can produce drag shows on campus while its lawsuit continues in a lower court. Judge Leslie H. Southwick, who wrote for the majority, said the context of the students' event made its message of supporting the queer community clear. 'The viewers of the drag show would have been ticketed audience members attending a performance sponsored by LGBT+ student organizations and designed to raise funds for LGBT+ suicide-prevention charity, ' wrote Southwick, who was appointed by George W. Bush. 'Against this backdrop, the message sent by parading on a theater stage in attire of the opposite sex would have been unmistakable.' [How plans for a West Texas drag show turned into a war over the First Amendment] The court concluded that Legacy Hall, where the drag show was scheduled to take place, was a designated public forum open to a variety of groups, including churches and political candidates. That meant banning drag shows targeted the content of the event, something the Constitution allows only in the rarest cases. Finally, the court found that students faced ongoing irreparable harm to their speech rights, noting Wendler had canceled another drag show planned for 2024 and declared that no drag shows would ever be allowed on campus. That conclusion gave the judges another reason to block the ban for now, since courts only grant such relief when plaintiffs have a strong case and risk being harmed without it. In March 2023, Wendler canceled Spectrum WT's drag show intended to raise money for the Trevor Project, a nonprofit that works to reduce suicides in the LGBTQ+ community. He explained in a letter to the campus community that he thought drag shows — where participants often use exaggerated clothing and makeup to explore, celebrate or parody gender roles — were misogynistic. 'As a university president, I would not support 'blackface' performances on our campus, even if told the performance is a form of free speech or intended as humor. It is wrong. I do not support any show, performance or artistic expression which denigrates – in this case, women – for any reason,' he wrote. In September 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a President Donald Trump appointee and former attorney for a conservative legal group that opposed LGBTQ rights, sided with Wendler. The case arose as Texas lawmakers were also targeting drag more broadly. The same year, they passed a law restricting some drag performances in public spaces, but a federal judge later struck it down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. West Texas A&M isn't the only campus to ban drag shows. This year, the Texas A&M System adopted a systemwide prohibition, and the University of Texas and University of North Texas systems enacted similar restrictions following pressure from conservative officials, including Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare. In March, however, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Texas A&M System's ban, allowing the 'Draggieland' event at the flagship campus to proceed, also finding that students were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims. That lawsuit is also still working its way through the courts. Judge James C. Ho dissented in the West Texas A&M case. Ho, who was appointed to the 5th Circuit by Trump and is the former Solicitor General of Texas, wrote that Spectrum WT had not shown it was entitled to such an 'extraordinary remedy' as a court order blocking the drag show ban. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represents Spectrum WT in the West Texas A&M case and the Queer Empowerment Council in the Texas A&M System lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a major victory for student speech. 'We're overjoyed that our clients will now be able to express themselves freely, and we'll be watching to make sure that President Wendler obeys the laws of the land while the case proceeds,' FIRE Attorney Adam Steinbaugh said in a statement. A spokesperson for West Texas A&M could not immediately be reached for comment, so it's unclear how the university will respond to the ruling. The case now returns to district court in Amarillo, where the fight over whether West Texas A&M's drag ban is constitutional will continue. The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage. Disclosure: West Texas A&M University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. More all-star speakers confirmed for The Texas Tribune Festival, Nov. 13–15! This year's lineup just got even more exciting with the addition of State Rep. Caroline Fairly, R-Amarillo; former United States Attorney General Eric Holder; Abby Phillip, anchor of 'CNN NewsNight'; Aaron Reitz, 2026 Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General; and State Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin. Get your tickets today! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
2025 SCOTUS Decisions That Could Affect Your Wallet
While the Supreme Court is the highest power of America's judicial branch, it might not be thought of as a force that dictates economic policy. However, many of the Court's decisions — particularly those related to the tax system — can definitely have an impact on your wallet. Check Out: Also See: As Shane Lucado, attorney and founder/CEO of InPerSuit, told GOBankingRates, 'When the Supreme Court turns policy into precedent, it rattles risk forecasts, freezes capital and creates trillions in downstream effects that are rarely accounted for in the headlines. … That ripple affects capital markets within hours, pricing strategies within days and litigation exposure within weeks.' Below are a few cases from the highest court's 2024-25 term, as well as cases from the upcoming term, that could affect your wallet. Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission In this case, SCOTUS unanimously decided that the state of Wisconsin had violated the First Amendment when it denied tax exemptions to the Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB). Initially, Wisconsin had denied tax exemption because the CCB, while a religious organization, did not actively proselytize Catholicism. SCOTUS ruled that denying tax exemptions to religious organizations that choose not to proselytize is a form of discrimination and a violation of First Amendment rights. Bishop James Powers said the ruling enables the church 'to continue serving those in need.' On a larger scale, the decision could cause revenue losses for states as a result of more nonprofit organizations being able to claim religious tax exceptions (which increases the taxpayer burden of others), as well as allow for costly litigation against states that similarly discriminate against organizations like the CCB. According to a 2021 Tax Foundation study, religious exemptions already cost the federal government — and thus taxpayers — $2.4 billion annually. See More: Also Read: Commissioner v. Zuch On June 12, 2025, SCOTUS ruled to limit taxpayer access to the U.S. Tax Court. Essentially, the Tax Court cannot oversee IRS collection disputes once the debt has been settled — such as through a refund offset, as happened in this case. Taxpayers must challenge refund offsets in federal district court instead — which can cost a lot more and be prohibitive for people without the financial means to advance such a legal challenge. Chad D. Cummings, attorney and CPA at Cummings & Cummings Law, told GOBankingRates that the decision 'gives the IRS a procedural advantage by allowing it to cut off Tax Court review through internal adjustment. As a result, taxpayers will have less time to request hearings or file petitions, making early engagement with counsel and prompt filing of Tax Court petitions more critical than ever.' Discover More: D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security This is an instance in which SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing for the White House's continued push for the deportation of undocumented immigrants. Specifically, the SCOTUS ruling undoes a lower court order that blocked Trump's administration from deporting undocumented immigrants to other countries (not their countries of origin) without first allowing the immigrants to make the case that such deportations might lead to persecution or death. While a clear victory for Trump and the Department of Homeland Security's continued efforts to curtail undocumented immigration, these mass deportations also could have a deleterious impact on the average American's wallet. As the Herman Legal Group has reported, an increase in immigration enforcement typically leads to labor shortages, specifically in the fields of agriculture, construction, restaurants and hospitality, housing and cleaning, and factories and manufacturing. Such labor shortages create decreased production and disrupted supply chains. The ultimate result of all that? Consumers pay more for groceries, for meals at a restaurant, for construction costs and more. The Herman Legal Group suggests the loss of immigrant workers could lead to 'federal and state tax losses in the range of $25 billion annually due to the departure of workers, reduction in consumer spending and the closure of immigrant-owned businesses.' Trump's recently passed spending bill earmarks as much as $170 billion for immigration and border security — a cost that taxpayers will shoulder for the rest of the decade. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo In this case, SCOTUS overturned a previous 1984 ruling, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, holding that courts are no longer required to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. Only judges can decide what laws mean, in an effort to prevent bureaucrats from shaping the laws. This could create a wave of costly litigation challenging various previously established federal regulations, especially in the realms of health care, labor, consumer rights and environmental protection. It also could lead to reductions in the enforcement of things like worker safety, healthcare and student loans. As the Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law has noted, the ruling 'will impact the work of federal agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, likely making it more difficult for such agencies to pass important regulations that protect public health.' This could lead to increased healthcare costs or even expensive lawsuits if legally actionable public health outbreaks were to occur. Moore v. United States In Moore v. United States, SCOTUS ruled that the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (a one-time tax on foreign company profits) is constitutional, even if the taxpayer never receives income from the profits being taxed. Chad D. Cummings, attorney and CPA, made clear to GOBankingRates that this ruling 'cements existing MRT liabilities and underscores the necessity of maintaining liquidity for tax obligations that may arise without a corresponding cash distribution. … Individuals with substantial foreign holdings, closely held businesses or large investment portfolios should view this as a prompt to revisit tax strategies now, before similar measures are enacted that could impose significant, unexpected financial obligations.' Find More: TikTok Inc. v. Garland By unanimous decision, SCOTUS upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. At its core, this SCOTUS decision will force ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, to sell off the social media platform. If ByteDance does not sell, TikTok will be permanently banned in the U.S., making it inaccessible in America to over 170 million users (including many influencers who profit from the app). President Trump has continually extended the deadline, which is currently Sept. 17, 2025. A TikTok ban could be devastating to the social media influencers who have monetized the platform. A recent Ziprecruiter study found that the average successful American TikTok influencer makes approximately $132,000 per year via the app. In America in 2023, TikTok reportedly generated approximately $16 billion in revenue. Speaking to GOBankingRates about other consequences of a TikTok ban, Sapana Grossi, managing partner in venture capital at the Shah Grossi Law Firm, said TikTok's absence would be especially hard on micro-brands, 'because it will be much more expensive to operate.' 'When the platform went down for a short time earlier this year, the ad prices on other platforms spiked almost immediately,' Grossi said. 'For example, the price for impressions on Meta shot up by 10%. Based on that experience, we know that a ban could raise advertising costs significantly and make it almost impossible for micro-brands, or brands that entirely rely on TikTok's algorithm, to stay in business.' Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment In the Supreme Court's upcoming session (which begins in October), the Court will hear Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. Sony (among others) has sued Cox Communications, accusing the telecommunications giant of enabling copyright infringement via its customers, some of whom engage in illegal file sharing while utilizing Cox's internet service. Sony maintains Cox has not done enough to prevent such criminality across its broadband service. Even if Cox wins, the case will be a costly one, forcing the company to potentially spend millions to defend itself. Yet if it loses, Grossi told GOBankingRates, 'Customers should expect to pay more as (Cox) will likely offset their increased expenses. (Cox) would essentially be acting as online police and monitoring accounts aggressively …(cutting) off households and public networks due to illegal activity by someone on the network. 'As a result, (Cox) will have to invest in larger compliance staff, monitoring/filtering software, and in-house legal departments to deal with a rise in litigation. It's very likely they will try to recover these costs through a quiet steady climb through higher monthly rates, administrative fees and reconnection charges. … Such fees rarely disappear, which means that a broad ruling here could lock in higher internet costs for years to come.' Cox's current internet connection plans range from $50 to $100 per month — whether those prices remain the same could hinge on this case. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety This 2025-26 session case seeks to determine whether a person may sue a government official — rather than the governmental body that official works for — over violations of federal law regarding the religious rights of incarcerated criminals. The case stems from Damon Landor, a practicing Rastafarian who was forced by his prison's warden to have his dreadlocks cut off. As a result, Landor has argued in federal court that his religious rights were violated by the warden. If Landor were to win, it's possible that the taxpayer burden could be increased to cover the legal defense costs of government officials. Currently, the Prison Policy Initiative estimates the total U.S. government cost of prisons and jails to be $80.7 billion yearly. Also See: Louisiana v. Callais Louisiana v. Callais is a 2025-26 redistricting case that will dictate the state of Louisiana's congressional map going forward by deciding whether the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in 2024 is a Constitutional violation or if it upholds the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. After the 2020 census, Louisiana drafted a congressional map with six districts. Black voters made up the majority of only one district in that map, despite the fact that approximately one-third of Louisiana voters are Black. A new map was drawn in 2024, adding a second majority-Black voting district. This case could have serious political implications, both for Louisiana and other states. Redistricting and gerrymandering is already a deeply contentious issue, with the makeup of congressional maps having the power to determine the outcomes of local, state and national elections. The financial impacts could be wide ranging. If Black voters are underrepresented, it could lead to less funding for healthcare, social services, etc., in their districts. Uncertainty around voting rights can affect investor sentiment in areas perceived as politically unstable. And the taxpayer costs of these political battles continue to add up. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission Another case of major financial import is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, in which SCOTUS will decide to uphold or strike down its 2001 ruling in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. That ruling upheld federal limitations on political parties with regards to campaign advertising. If SCOTUS were to strike down the original ruling, political party influence on elections could increase by a substantial margin, with far fewer constraints on political advertising. Like the aforementioned Louisiana v. Callais, this is a case that has the power to sway presidential elections, which in turn could dictate the economic future of the nation. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 5 Old Navy Items Retirees Need To Buy Ahead of Fall 7 Tax Loopholes the Rich Use To Pay Less and Build More Wealth This article originally appeared on 2025 SCOTUS Decisions That Could Affect Your Wallet
