Latest news with #Qatanani
Memri
3 days ago
- Politics
- Memri
NJ Imam Mohammad Al-Qatanani in Paterson Friday Sermon: Life in Gaza Was Normal and Beautiful before All This, This Could Happen to Any Nation, Anywhere; Instead of Thanking Allah for Saving Them from
Imam Mohammad Al-Qatanani of the Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) in Paterson, NJ said in his August 1, 2025 Friday sermon that Hitler and the Nazis committed crimes and massacres against the Jews, and that Allah relieved the Jews from that oppression and from European oppression. However, instead of showing gratitude, the Jews have inflicted oppression on the Palestinians. He added that the people of Gaza lived a 'normal, beautiful, and happy life' prior to recent events and that what happened to them could have happened to any other nation. In December 2017, Qatanani spoke at a NYC demonstration organized by Within Our Lifetime, alongside Nerdeen Kiswani, urging Palestinians to reject peace agreements with Israel and launch an Intifada. Qatanani was convicted by an Israeli military court in 1993 for supporting Hamas, did not disclose this conviction on his U.S. immigration application, and has family ties to a Hamas military leader. Despite this, he remains in the U.S. following a 2025 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that prevented the Department of Homeland Security from revoking his green card due to missed procedural deadlines.
Middle East Eye
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
CAIR-NJ applauds federal appeals court decision to stop deportation of Palestinian man
CAIR-New Jersey on Thursday applauded a federal appeals court after it stopped the deportation of an imam who was born in Palestine and has been in the US for nearly 30 years. Mohammed Qatanani is an imam in New Jersey who has been fighting a legal battle for exercising his First Amendment rights. In a statement, the civil rights organisation said: "This victory secures Imam Mohammed Qatanani's stability for himself, his family, and the communities he has served for decades. It also reinforces a fundamental principle: federal agencies must operate within the boundaries our laws establish. 'No one agency should have the right to upend people's lives. This ruling sends a powerful message that our legal system will protect religious leaders and immigrant families from overreach.' In a 2-1 ruling on Tuesday, the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Board of Immigration Appeals had "exceeded its authority when it attempted to undo Qatanani's adjustment to Legal Permanent Resident status".
Newsweek
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Green Card Holders Handed Big Legal Win Amid Trump Administration Crackdown
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot unilaterally revoke a green card, calling the government's approach "antithetical" to the separation of powers and a violation of Congress' authority in a case pertaining to a lawful permanent resident. A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment when contacted by Newsweek on Wednesday. Newsweek has contacted the petitioner's counsel for comment via email. Why It Matters The court's decision pushes back on the Trump administration's desire to be able to reconsider and potentially revoke an individual's lawful permanent residency, which could have sweeping implications for millions of permanent residents. President Donald Trump has pledged to launch the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history, and immigrants residing in the country illegally and legally, with valid documentation such as green cards and visas, have been detained. Newsweek has reported dozens of cases involving green-card holders and applicants who were swept up in the immigration raids and various arrests. A Customs and Border Protection warning published on July 9 said, "Possessing a green card is a privilege, not a right." It added that legal residents arriving at a port of entry with prior criminal convictions may be detained in advance of removal proceeding. A new U.S. citizen waiting to take the Oath of Allegiance before receiving their naturalization certificates during a formal ceremony at Midway International Airport in Chicago on June 25. A new U.S. citizen waiting to take the Oath of Allegiance before receiving their naturalization certificates during a formal ceremony at Midway International Airport in Chicago on June 25. KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images What To Know In a Tuesday ruling, a court said the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is part of the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review, lacked the authority to unilaterally revoke the legal permanent status of Mohammad Qatanani, a longtime New Jersey imam. Qatanani, who is Palestinian, has spent more than two decades seeking permanent residency in the United States. In 1996, he was admitted to the U.S. on a work visa, and three years later he applied to adjust his status to a lawful permanent resident. However, federal officials cited alleged ties to Hamas, allegations that Qatanani has denied. "An Immigration Judge twice made fact findings and credibility determinations in Qatanani's favor and granted his application to adjust to LPR status. The IJ issued those orders in 2008 and 2020, respectively," the case said. However, the 2008 order never became final because the Department of Homeland Security appealed, and the BIA vacated it. Although DHS did not appeal the second ruling within the required 30 days, the BIA later ordered Qatanani's removal, a decision he appealed. Tuesday's opinion, written by Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, said, "The BIA exceeded its authority when it attempted to undo Qatanani's adjustment to LPR status by using an agency regulation in a manner inconsistent with the procedures set out by Congress in the [Immigration and Nationality Act]," adding that it came long after the 30-day period. Freeman continued, "Accordingly, we granted Qatanani's petition for review and vacated the BIA's order," thereby asserting that the immigration judge's 2020 order granting Qatanani permanent residency was upheld. Later in the opinion, she wrote: "The implications of this [the Justice Department's] argument are extraordinary. Under this reading of agency authority, the government has carte blanche to evade the limits Congress imposed on the Executive's discretionary authority over adjustments to LPR status and to circumvent the procedures Congress mandated for recission of such adjustments." Freeman continued: "The government's position is antithetical to 'the basic concept of separation of powers.' … We therefore reject it." Judge Paul Matey, whom Trump appointed to the court, wrote in his dissent, "For more than a quarter century, five Presidents and 10 Attorneys General have objected to Mohammad Qatanani's presence in our Nation." He concluded, "Seeing no constitutional claim or legal question that warrants granting the petition, and mindful we lack jurisdiction to review the Executive's discretionary decision not to grant Qatanani a status adjustment, I would deny the petition and so respectfully dissent." What People Are Saying Amelia Wilson, an assistant professor of law and the director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at Pace University, told Newsweek: "Under Trump, the Department of Justice has repeatedly sought to usurp Congressional lawmaking authority, rewrite the Constitution, and upset the balance of power. The judiciary's duty is to safeguard the people against such abusive government conduct and Executive overreach. The Third Circuit did just that yesterday by guaranteeing that, at least for now, the Department must observe the basic mandates of due process." Bradford Bernstein, a managing partner at Spar Bernstein, previously told Newsweek: "In this case, the government is arguing that it can revoke a green card years or even decades after it was granted, based solely on a claim that an immigration judge did not complete all the administrative steps required to finalize the grant of permanent residency. The immigrant involved was granted a green card by a judge, and the government failed to appeal within the standard 30-day window. Under well-established legal principles, that decision should be considered final. Yet the government now claims that because of a procedural oversight by the judge or the immigration service, it can still rescind the green card long after the fact." Customs and Border Protection wrote on X on July 8: "Having a criminal history does not make you an upstanding lawful permanent resident. Possessing a green card is a privilege, not a right. Under our nation's laws, our government has the authority to revoke your green card if our laws are broken and abused. In addition to immigration removal proceedings, lawful permanent residents presenting at a U.S. port of entry with previous criminal convictions may be subject to mandatory detention." U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote on X on May 5: "Green cards and visas will be revoked if an alien breaks the law, supports terrorism, overstays their permitted visit time, performs illegal work, or anything else that violates the terms on which we granted them this privilege or compromises the safety of our fellow Americans." What Happens Next The BIA's order has been vacated against Qatanani and maintains that he is a lawful permanent resident.
Hindustan Times
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Can your green card be revoked by Pam Bondi at any time? What you need to know
The Justice Department has reportedly recently told the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that US Attorney General Pam Bondi is authorised to reconsider and even revoke green card holders' lawful permanent residency at any time. In case the court backs the Trump administration's position, the decision could allow the government to revoke a green card several years after it was issued, Newsweek noted. According to some critics, this could end up eroding due process. After taking office, Donald Trump vowed to deport migrants without legal status, majorly targeting those with criminal records. However, according to Newsweek, reports showed that people with valid documentation and no serious criminal history have also been detained. During a Third Circuit hearing recently, the Justice Department claimed that Bondi has the right to revisit and potentially revoke green card holders' residency status at any time. This step could impact millions of permanent residents in the US. The Justice Department's argument comes amid the case of Mohammad Qatanani, a Palestinian-born imam. Qatanani, who has lived in New Jersey since 1996, reportedly led one of the state's largest mosques. For two decades, he has been trying to seek permanent residency, but his 1999 application was denied in 2006. Federal officials went on to cite a 1993 Israeli detention and an alleged connection to Hamas. However, Qatanani denied the allegations, and he was simply detained and mistreated. Immigration judges ruled in Qatanani's favour twice. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals intervened and revoked his green card. He subsequently appealed the decision. Justice Department attorney Lindsay Murphy claimed that whether or not the immigration judge's ruling in favour of Qatanani was finalised, the Board of Immigration Appeals was authorised to reopen the case at any time. Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, expressed scepticism during the hearing, saying, "Do you mean even 10, 20 years later?" "The regulation doesn't impose any time limit, so yes," Murphy added. "But that certification requirement comes also with the requirement that there be exceptional circumstances." "The law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act is clear. The Department of Homeland Security cannot unilaterally "revoke" a permanent resident's status," Amelia Wilson, Assistant Professor of Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, told Newsweek. The agency has to follow a formal process, including issuing a "Notice of Intent to Rescind" and providing the person the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. "During these proceedings, it is the government that bears the burden of proving by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the permanent resident should have their status taken away. At that point, it is the immigration judge—and only the immigration judge—who can effectively strip an individual of their green card," Wilson said. "The Trump administration's proposal in front of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is not a new legislative measure but a reinterpretation of existing green card law, one that has the potential to fundamentally alter the legal rights of lawful permanent residents," said Bradford Bernstein, managing partner at Spar Bernstein.
Time of India
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Green cards could be revoked at any time under newly proposed rule
Live Events You Might Also Like: US Visa Bulletin for June 2025: No major relief for Indian green card aspirants You Might Also Like: Trump administration warns Green Card holders: Law violations could lead to revocation The US Justice Department told the Third Circuit Court of Appeals this week that Attorney General Pam Bondi has the authority to reconsider and potentially revoke the lawful permanent residency of green card holders at any time. The case, if decided in favour of the government, could allow green cards to be withdrawn years or even decades after being issued, according to a report by remarks came during a court hearing involving Mohammad Qatanani, a Palestinian-born imam living in New Jersey since 1996. He has led one of the state's largest mosques and has been seeking permanent residency for over 20 years. Federal officials denied his application in 2006, citing a 1993 detention in Israel and alleged links to Hamas. Qatanani denies the allegations, stating he was detained and judges ruled twice in Qatanani's favour, most recently in 2020. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals later reversed the decision and revoked his green card. Qatanani appealed the the hearing, Justice Department attorney Lindsay Murphy argued that the immigration judge's ruling had not been finalized due to missing procedural steps, such as visa number assignment and biometric updates. As per the Newsweek report, she said, 'The regulation doesn't impose any time limit, so yes,' when asked if green card status could be challenged even after 10 or 20 years. 'But that certification requirement comes also with the requirement that there be exceptional circumstances.' Judge Arianna Freeman questioned this broad interpretation, asking, 'Do you mean even 10, 20 years later?'(Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates)Legal experts have raised concerns about the implications. Amelia Wilson, Assistant Professor at Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, told Newsweek, 'The law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act is clear. The Department of Homeland Security cannot unilaterally revoke a permanent resident's status.' She added that revocation requires a formal process, including a Notice of Intent to Rescind and a hearing. 'It is the government that bears the burden of proving by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence,' Wilson Bernstein, managing partner at Spar Bernstein, said, 'The government is arguing that it can revoke a green card years or even decades after it was granted, based solely on a claim that an immigration judge did not complete all the administrative steps.' He warned, 'Accepting this argument would severely undermine the due process rights of permanent residents.'Wilson added, 'The Justice Department's position before the Third Circuit is yet another attempt to terrorize immigrant communities. The Trump administration is telling noncitizens that they are never safe from sudden detention and deportation.'If the court rules in favour of the government, the decision would apply within the Third Circuit's jurisdiction—Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. However, it could set a precedent and, if upheld by the Supreme Court, impact immigration enforcement nationwide.
