Indian PhD graduate granted protection from deportation by federal judge
An Indian PhD graduate who was studying at a university in South Dakota, whom the Trump administration has been attempting to deport, was granted an injunction by a federal judge, allowing her to stay in the country after having received her degree.
Priya Saxena's student visa was terminated by the Trump administration in April, which would have prevented her from completing her doctoral program and graduating on 10 May.
According to court documents, Saxena's student visa was revoked due to having a 'criminal record', but her only infraction was from a minor 2021 traffic violation – 'failure to stop for emergency vehicle' – for which she paid a small fine. According to her attorney, immigration law states the minor infraction is not a deportable offense.
Due to her visa being terminated, which was still valid until February 2027, her Student Exchange Visitor Program (SEVIS) record was deleted. The SEVIS system is the Department of Homeland Security's database to keep track of international students with visas. Due to her SEVIS record being terminated, she was not allowed to continue her studies.
Saxena and her attorney sued the Trump administration in mid-April and were granted a temporary restraining order by a federal judge, allowing her to complete her doctorate and graduate this past weekend.
This week, a federal judge in South Texas granted her a preliminary injunction, allowing her to stay in the country and blocking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from arresting and detaining her without court approval.
In her decision, the judge said that DHS's actions 'appear unlawful and are likely to cause Saxena irreparable harm'.
'The rule of law saved an innocent person from unlawful action by this administration,' her attorney told NBC News. 'Dr Saxena is exactly the kind of person we should want in this country.'
The Trump administration has been pursuing international students throughout the country, attempting to deport them from country. Some students, such as Saxena, have been targeted by the DHS due to minor infractions. Other students, such as with the case of Mahmoud Khalil and a number of others, have had their visas revoked by the state department due to their pro-Palestinian activism.
Sign up to First Thing
Our US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
The DHS has faced numerous legal challenges for its attempts to target international students who are in the country legally. During one hearing, the DHS revealed last month that it ran the names of more than 1 million international students through an FBI database to search for any criminal history. The search turned up 6,400 hits, which led to the DHS's revocation of visas for those students.
Saxena's attorney submitted a document on Thursday seeking a permanent injunction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
11 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump's energy dominance agenda could be ravaged by Section 899
LONDON, June 12 - A proposed U.S. tax targeting foreign investors could hurt European energy giants that operate in America's booming oil and gas sector, undermining what President Donald Trump describes as his energy dominance agenda. Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill under review by the Senate includes an additional tax of up to 20% on foreign investors' income, such as dividends and royalties. The tax, known as Section 899, was devised as a pushback against countries that impose what the bill describes as "unfair foreign taxes" on U.S. companies, such as digital services taxes. Section 899 is believed to be targeting companies headquartered in the European Union and Britain, which both have tax systems considered discriminatory by the Trump administration. The provision is a significant threat to London-listed Shell (SHEL.L), opens new tab and BP (BP.L), opens new tab as well as France's TotalEnergies ( opens new tab and Spain's Repsol ( opens new tab, which all have sprawling operations in the United States. Trump, who often used the slogan "drill, baby, drill" in his election campaign, has portrayed himself as pro-fossil fuel, vowing on his first day in office to maximise oil and gas production. But if approved, Section 899 could have the opposite effect. BP last year invested more than $6 billion, about 40% of its capital expenditure, in the United States, where its interests include onshore and offshore oil and gas operations, two refineries, thousands of retail fuel stations and a power trading business. The country is also home to more than a third of BP's global workforce of about 90,000 and accounted for roughly 30% of its 2024 revenue of $189 billion and more than a quarter of its $21 billion net profit. Shell, the biggest European oil major, is also a huge investor in the United States, which accounted for 23% of its 2024 revenue of $284 billion. It invests about 30% of its capital expenditure in the country, where it has oil and gas production facilities, a petrochemicals plant, a vast retail network, liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchasing agreements and major trading operations. The United States became increasingly important to Big Oil companies in recent decades thanks to its stable fiscal and regulatory environment while other regions presented a variety of challenges. Take Russia, for example. Its vast oil and gas resources started attracting investments from many companies in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the country is now uninvestible owing to western sanctions that followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Similarly, western companies have limited opportunities to invest in the Middle East, where national oil companies dominate. Europe, meanwhile, has limited natural resources and strict environmental regulation. The multinational nature of oil and gas companies means they have plenty of experience dealing with tax uncertainty, but shifting tax policies tend to delay investments. Company boards require long-term confidence to proceed with large, multi-decade capital projects such as oil and gas fields or LNG plants. The industry's confidence in the United States was already shaken under Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, who in 2020 revoked a construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The Biden administration also paused approvals for new LNG projects in 2024 because of climate concerns. Trump lifted the pause when he entered the White House. According to Section 899, multinational companies could face a new tax on dividends sent overseas and inter-company loans, potentially reducing profit. The Gulf of Mexico accounted for about 10% of Shell's 2024 free cash flow of $40 billion, it said in a presentation. That means that Section 899 could shave $800 million from its free cash flow per year from Gulf of Mexico operations alone. BP made about $1.5 billion in free cash flow in the United States last year, Reuters calculations show. A 20% dividend tax could translate into a $300 million loss in free cash flow. Faced with the worsening fiscal terms, companies could opt to direct funds away from the United States. Though options for deploying capital elsewhere on a similar scale are limited, companies could choose to spread their investments more widely. Such a scenario could be a boon for countries such as Canada, Brazil, Mozambique and Namibia, which have large untapped natural resources. Another option would be for companies to transfer their headquarters and listings to the United States - a costly and politically complicated option. Shell previously contemplated such a move to boost its share value, though it appears to have abandoned the idea. Ultimately, it is very likely that the Senate would push to modify Section 899 or limit its scope, given the potential far-reaching impact on many sectors. But barring a radical change, Section 899 poses a huge risk for European oil and gas giants that are heavily dependent on the United States. Achieving the Trump administration's energy dominance agenda will almost certainly require more foreign investment, not less, so if the CEOs of European energy companies complain loudly enough, the president may well listen to them. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
BBC News
22 minutes ago
- BBC News
What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, UK and US?
A multi-billion dollar submarine deal between long-standing allies - Australia, the UK and the US - has come under the spotlight after the Trump administration said it was reviewing how the deal fits in with its heavily-touted "America First" agenda. The Aukus security pact, Australia's biggest ever defence project, is set to play a key part in the country's ability to replace its ageing Collins-class submarine fleet - and, crucially, its military standing in the region. The 30-day review will be led by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of Aukus. In a speech last year, he questioned why the US would give away "this crown jewel asset when we most need it". A US defence spokesperson said the review is about ensuring "this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda".Fears the review may torpedo the deal have been downplayed by the UK and Australia, with both saying the review is a normal process when a new government takes power. What is Aukus? Billed as a trilateral security partnership, the Aukus deal - worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn) over 30 years - involves two so-called pillars. Pillar 1 is about the supply and delivery of nuclear-powered attack submarines. Australia will buy three second-hand Virginia-class submarines from the US from 2032 with options to purchase two that, the plan is to design and build an entirely new nuclear-powered submarine model for the UK and Australian attack craft will be built in Britain and Australia to a British design, but use technology from all three 2 is about the allies collaborating on their "advanced capabilities". This involves sharing military expertise in areas such as long-range hypersonic missiles, undersea robotics and AI. What's the purpose of the deal? At its core, the deal is believed to be about countering China's growing presence in the Indo-Pacific region, and its role in rising tensions in disputed territories such as the South China none of the allies have directly pointed at China as a reason for the deal, the three countries have spoken about how regional security concerns have "grown significantly" in recent condemned the agreement as "extremely irresponsible" when it was first ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said it "seriously undermines regional peace and stability and intensifies the arms race". Who negotiated it? The deal was unveiled in September 2021 by three former leaders: Australia's Scott Morrison, the UK's Boris Johnson and the US's Joe Biden. The UK reviewed the security pact last year after Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government won the general election. What does Australia get out of it? For Australia, the deal represents a major upgrade to its military capabilities. The country is set to become just the second to receive Washington's elite nuclear propulsion technology, after the submarines will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet. They would also mean Australia would be able to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first the deal, sailors from the Royal Australian Navy are due to be sent to US and UK submarine bases to learn how to use the nuclear-powered submarines. What do the UK and US get out of it? From 2027, the pact will allow both the US and UK to base a small number of nuclear submarines in Perth, Western will also create about 7,000 jobs in Britain, with the design and construction of the new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines set to take place in the UK. The benefits for the US are less obvious - but sharing its defence technology could give the nation an opportunity to grow its presence in Asia-Pacific. Arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in a region that is far from their own.
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Alex Murdaugh's son Buster's 'bitter' life in isolation and the source of fury at his father that has nothing to do with the murders
Double murderer Alex Murdaugh 's only surviving son is bitter and struggling to escape the stain of his killer father's legacy, the Daily Mail can reveal. Four years after his mother Maggie, 52, and brother Paul, 22, were shot and killed by the disgraced legal scion, the 32-year-old still hasn't adapted to his bleak new reality. Buster Murdaugh grew up as a member of one of South Carolina's most distinguished families but the gruesome slayings carried out by his father and the publicity of the trial that followed have left him without many career opportunities. A source close to him has told the Daily Mail that, though he believes his father to be innocent of the murders, Buster is 'really angry' at the sweeping financial crimes that Murdaugh was subsequently convicted of. 'He's living his life but he doesn't really have too much going on,' a member of his inner circle said. 'He's pretty directionless, but he's figuring it out.' Buster and his family found themselves in the middle of a media firestorm in June 2021 when the elder Murdaugh, a high-profile attorney in South Carolina's Low Country, called 911 to report that he had found the bodies of his wife and son on their sprawling Moselle estate in rural Colleton County. Police arrived to find Maggie and Paul shot dead. Investigators determined that two firearms had been used. Although Murdaugh initially denied involvement, officers soon began to unravel a web of financial mismanagement, embezzlement, fraud and drug abuse. Three months later, Murdaugh - while under suspension for the alleged murders - was shot in the head as he changed a tire on his black Mercedes-Benz SUV. Authorities soon alleged that he had arranged the shooting himself by hiring distant relative Curtis Edward Smith in a failed suicide-for-hire plot so that Buster could receive a $10 million life insurance payout. 'That was a really stressful time for Buster,' the source said. 'He felt like things went from s*** to s***tier. And they keep getting worse.' The ensuing scandal ended one of South Carolina's most dominant family dynasties. A member of the Murdaugh family had served as solicitor of the 14th Judicial Circuit for 86 years, and most family members were prominent attorneys and judges. Murdaugh was ultimately charged with more than 90 financial crimes, ranging from embezzlement to money laundering - and two counts of murder. In March 2023, he was convicted after a highly publicized trial to two consecutive life terms without possibility of parole for killing his wife and son by the dog kennels of the family's hunting lodge in Islandton. He was also sentenced in federal court in April 2024 to 40 years for financial crimes involving millions stolen from clients and colleagues - a sentence that was to run concurrently with his state prison terms. He is being held in protective custody at McCormick Correctional Institution, a maximum security prison where it's likely that he will die. He continues to deny responsibility for the murders. The deaths have spawned multiple documentaries and a motion picture film is in production, with actor Jason Clarke playing Murdaugh. Buster has been trying to get back on his feet with his former long-term girlfriend and now new wife Brooklynn White, an attorney, after he dropped out of law school. The couple moved into a modest three-bedroom home in Bluffton, an hour away from the South Carolina low country estate where Buster was raised. The fallout in the two years since what local media called the 'trial of the century' has taken its toll on Buster, who is frequently confronted by angry members of the public whenever he goes near his hometown. 'You don't run into any of these people in public,' Buster once told his father on a jailhouse phone call. 'But I get stopped and yelled at all the time. I got cussed at in the gas station the other day.' Still, Buster stands by his father, insisting that he would never have murdered his wife and son. In his first and only interview since the murder trial, Buster told the Fox Nation documentary The Fall of the House of Murdaugh: 'I do not think that he could be affiliated with endangering my mother and brother. 'I think that I hold a very unique perspective that nobody else in that courtroom ever held. And I know the love that I have witnessed.' Despite this, the two rarely speak. When they do, the calls are always short and initiated by the elder Murdaugh, now 57, from behind bars. 'I don't think he's got a lot to say to his dad at the moment,' the source added. 'I mean, what's there to talk about'.
