Latest news with #8U.S.C
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge grants injunction protecting WMU international students' enrollment status
KALAMAZOO, Mich. (WOOD) — A judge granted a preliminary injunction to a number of international students, including three at Western Michigan University, saying the federal government must keep their information in a database that tracks their enrollment status. U.S. District Court Judge Jane Beckering issued the preliminary injunction in a written order Wednesday. She told Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that she may not terminate the students' records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System 'absent valid ground' as set forth by law. The judge also told the federal government it may not arrest, detain or move the students out of the jurisdictions they are already in without telling the court first. Beckering had already issued a temporary restraining order to keep the students' information in SEVIS ahead of a hearing on the matter. That was held Tuesday. 'At oral argument on May 6, 2025, Defendants argued that the general authority that Congress conferred under 8 U.S.C. § 1372 to 'develop and conduct a program to collect … information' about nonimmigrant students somehow provides them specific authority to terminate Plaintiffs' status,' Beckering wrote in part in the injunction. 'The Court finds the argument wholly unpersuasive and Defendants' reliance on § 1372 for this proposition misplaced.' Beckering told the government to provide proof by May 13 that the students' information is back in SEVIS. The injunction remains in effect indefinitely as the students' lawsuit against the federal government moves forward. The three WMU students are among 10 at various universities in Michigan and elsewhere who are suing the government, saying it unlawfully terminated their status in SEVIS. According to a redacted version of the original lawsuit previously sent to News 8, the reason government officials stated for terminating the students' SEVIS status in an email was 'OTHERWISE FAILING TO MAINTAIN STATUS: Individual identified in criminal records check and/or has had their VISA revoked.' According to the suit, one WMU student is a 27-year-old man from India who is expected to graduate this year with a master's in industrial engineering. He completed probation in January and a misdemeanor retail fraud case was dismissed. A speeding violation was also dismissed. Attorneys in the complaint said that whether or not the dismissal is considered a 'conviction' in immigration law, it does not make the student removable or inadmissible form the U.S. The second student is a 27-year-old man from Nepal who previously graduated from WMU with a bachelor's and master's degrees in aerospace engineering. In his record is one traffic violation, which lawyers say was dismissed after he paid a fine. A third is a 31-year-old woman who is a Chinese citizen. The doctoral education student is married to a U.S. citizen, has a daughter who is a U.S. citizen and is expecting another child. In December 2020, she got a speeding ticket in Nebraska, which was later dismissed the following year. The government has until June 17 to file its response to the lawsuit. In April, WMU leaders shared that six students had their SEVIS status terminated, with one student's visa revoked that the university was aware of. —News 8 photojournalist Nick Ponton contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Bizarre Legal Theory Behind Mahmoud Khalil's Detention
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that he may have revoked 300 or more visas for students, visitors, and others in the United States over Palestine solidarity activism. A number of these revocations have captured national attention, such as Tufts doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk, whose terror as she was apprehended by undercover officers was captured on film, and Columbia doctoral student Ranjani Srinivasan, who escaped to Canada before being apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The secretary's targets extend beyond visa holders, as he purports to revoke the lawful status of lawful permanent residents as well, with two known so far: Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Columbia undergraduate Yunseo Chung. Hundreds of those affected by the secretary's visa revocations related to Palestine activism remain under the radar, though some are among the larger group of revocations with various justifications made public over the past week. The numbers may only increase if Rubio is to be taken at his word: 'We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas.' President Donald Trump has similarly vowed that Khalil's 'is the first arrest of many to come.' Given the far-reaching authority claimed by the executive branch, it's worth trying to understand the secretary's legal justification for revoking student visas and contextualizing the secretary's recent decisions in the landscape of immigration law, policy, and U.S. history. Our analysis of the historical record has yielded a shocking result: According to our review, the United States has only ever used the statute it is using to justify these revocations 15 previous times. That statute, which Rubio has been invoking as his authority for visa revocations, is 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(4)(C)(i), known as the foreign policy deportability ground. This provision makes deportable any '[noncitizen] whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.' It provides one of the most sweeping grants of discretionary executive power in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The only federal district court to have considered the constitutionality of this ground held that it violates due process because it is unconstitutionally vague and deprives noncitizens of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. That decision was authored by none other than Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, the president's late sister. The foreign policy deportability ground was introduced into immigration law in 1990. Prior to March 2025, the use of this provision to seek an individual's deportation was almost unprecedented in this provision's 35-year history. Based on publicly available data we analyzed from the Executive Office for Immigration Review and published Board of Immigration Appeals decisions, out of 11.7 million cases, the federal government invoked the foreign policy deportability ground as a removal charge in only 15 cases—and only five of which involved detention throughout the proceeding. Only four individuals ever were ultimately ordered removed or deported after being charged with removability under this ground. That amounts to one person being ordered removed per decade under this provision. What's more, nearly all of these cases arose in the distant past, shortly after the provision was enacted. Focusing on the past 25 years until early March 2025, the EOIR data reflects that the foreign policy deportability ground has been invoked only four times, and only twice has it been the only charge alleged throughout the proceeding. Neither of those two cases involved detention throughout the immigration proceedings. When the government invoked the foreign policy deportability ground in Khalil's case last month—targeting a lawful permanent resident for speech protected by the First Amendment—that action appears to be unprecedented in the history of this provision and in the history of the United States. At a minimum, the government's assertion of authority was extraordinary—indeed, vanishingly rare. Who was targeted with the foreign policy deportability ground prior to March 2025? Publicly available data shows that these individuals hailed from around the world: Germany, Haiti, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Thailand, and Yugoslavia. While information about most of these individuals is not publicly available, two publicly reported cases shed some light on how the government has invoked the foreign policy deportability ground in the past. On Jan. 5, 1995, then–Secretary of State Warren Christopher invoked the foreign policy deportability ground against Mohammad Khalifah, a Saudi national, about 38 years old, who had entered the United States on a visitor visa the prior month. The State Department revoked his visa two weeks later and immigration authorities detained him, alleging that Khalifah had engaged in terrorist activity in Jordan. An indictment against him charged him with conspiracy to commit terrorist acts in Jordan, and he had been sentenced to death in absentia there. When Khalifah sought to be released on bond in a U.S. immigration court, the federal government presented correspondence from Christopher invoking the foreign policy deportability ground as well as evidence from high-ranking U.S. and Jordanian officials detailing his role in terrorist activities. Unsurprisingly, the immigration judge then denied Khalifah's bond request, a decision affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Christopher later invoked the foreign policy deportability ground on Oct. 2, 1995, against Mario Ruiz Massieu, a Mexican citizen and member of one of Mexico's most influential and politically active families. Ruiz Massieu had long served as a professor in Mexico, directed the National Autonomous University of Mexico, and authored books on education, history, law, and politics. He then joined the upper echelons of Mexico's federal government, eventually serving as deputy attorney general. During that time, his brother—an outspoken critic of the Mexican political system who had been secretary general of a major political party—was assassinated. Ruiz Massieu immediately commenced an investigation into his brother's death and faced retaliation as a result. Ruiz Massieu then resigned from the role of deputy attorney general, wrote a book accusing the governing party of blocking an investigation into the murder of his brother, and reportedly faced kidnapping and death threats as a result. When Mexican authorities interrogated him, he and his family fled to the United States with temporary visas on March 3, 1994. Two days later, a Mexican court charged Ruiz Massieu with intimidation, concealment, and obstruction of justice, and sought his extradition. Over the next year, the U.S. government brought four extradition proceedings against Ruiz Massieu on charges of obstruction of justice and embezzlement; each time the judge found insufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause that he had committed the crimes. Christopher then effectively joined Mexico's extradition request by invoking the foreign policy deportability ground, a move Judge Trump Barry described as 'truly Kafkaesque.' Ruiz Massieu sued the U.S. government in an effort to block his deportation and he won in federal district court. Judge Trump Barry ruled that foreign policy deportability ground was unconstitutionally vague in violation of due process. Judge Samuel Alito, writing for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, subsequently reversed that decision, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Massieu's claims, without reaching the constitutional questions. What's critical is this: As controversial as they may have been, Khalifah and Ruiz Massieu's cases are a far cry from how the foreign policy deportability ground is being invoked today. Both cases involved individuals who had been charged with serious crimes abroad, not a student who engaged in peaceful protests. The federal government's invocation of the foreign policy ground may by no means be limited to noncitizens who engage in pro-Palestinian speech. The presence of Ukrainians who are critical of Russia, supporters of more security cooperation with Europe, and economists skeptical of tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China could all suddenly be considered adverse to U.S. foreign policy interests and subject to deportation based on the unilateral determination of Rubio. This list has no end, and no meaningful limiting principles. On campuses and in communities nationwide, students, scholars, researchers, and ordinary people are increasingly fearful of speaking freely. Even naturalized U.S. citizens and those with dual U.S. citizenship are concerned. The chilling effect of the recent arrests should worry us all, regardless of our views on the recent student protests. These arrests have the potential to reshape college campuses and American life for at least a generation, as activism is subdued in the wake of state-sanctioned disappearances and international students increasingly choose not to study in the United States. In the shadow of this chilling silence, our country loses out on the talents of highly skilled immigrants and our nation lurches closer to authoritarianism.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Prince Harry's immigration records made public amid court battle
The United States Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday released documents showing that Prince Harry did not receive favorable treatment in the process of obtaining his U.S. visa. A DHS official said in the heavily redacted immigration court documents that his immigration process received no favorable treatment. "This speculation by Plaintiffs does not point to any evidence of government misconduct," the agency stated in one of the documents. "The records, as explained above, do not support such an allegation but show the regulatory process involved in reviewing and granting immigration benefits which was done in compliance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1103 and applicable rules and regulations." Prince Harry's visit with King Charles III, absence of Prince William sparks reconciliation questions The documents were released after the Heritage Foundation -- a conservative think tank -- filed a Freedom of Information Act request for Harry's immigration documents in 2023, followed by a lawsuit calling for DHS to expedite the process because of of the public interest in the case and media coverage of the prince's admitted drug use when he was younger. U.S. visa applications ask about current and past drug use, and admissions of drug use can lead to denial, based on different factors. The Heritage Foundation has said previously in court filings that the drug use "surfaced the question" about whether Harry received favorable treatment in being granted entry to the U.S. and whether Harry disclosed his past in his visa application, as required. A Washington, D.C., district court judge ruled on March 7 that Harry's U.S. immigration files be released by the end of day Tuesday. However, DHS redacted the full immigration record, including his status in the United States. "To release his exact status could subject him to reasonably foreseeable harm in the form of harassment as well as unwanted contact by the media and others," the court filing says. "The Duke of Sussex has not consented to disclosure of his records to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs have not proven sufficient public interest to outweigh the Duke's right to privacy concerning any other potential CBP records about him that may or may not exist." ABC News has reached out to the Heritage Foundation for comment on the redacted documents' release and has not yet heard back. A representative for Harry has also not yet replied to ABC News' request for comment. Harry and his wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, moved to the United States in 2020 after stepping away from their senior roles in Britain's royal family. Harry, the youngest son of King Charles III, and Meghan now live in Montecito, California, with their two children, Archie and Lilibet. Last April, Harry named the U.S. as his official residence in documents filed with Companies House, a government-run registry of companies in the United Kingdom. The filing lists the date of Harry's residency change as June 29, 2023, the date that Buckingham Palace confirmed Harry and Meghan had officially moved out of Frogmore Cottage, their former home in Windsor. Prince Harry turns 40 with birthday wishes from King Charles, Prince William and Princess Kate Harry told ABC News' Will Reeve last year that he has considered getting his American citizenship. "The American citizenship is a thought that has crossed my mind, but certainly is not something that is a high priority for me right now," he told Reeve in an interview that aired Feb. 16, 2024. When asked what would stop him from doing so, Harry replied, "I have no idea." In February, amid the Heritage Foundation's lawsuit, President Donald Trump told the New York Post he has no plans to deport Harry, saying, "I don't want to do that." 'I'll leave him alone. He's got enough problems with his wife. She's terrible," Trump said, referring to Meghan, who reportedly called Trump "divisive' and 'misogynistic' during the 2016 presidential election, two years before she wed Harry. Prince Harry's immigration records made public amid court battle originally appeared on
