Displaying items by tag: Trump travel ban

Nationals from six countries are subject to Trump travel ban, except those with bona fide ties to U.S. – Supreme Court

On June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion (opinion by the whole court), granted President Donald J. Trump’s petitions for certiorari to review two Court of Appeals orders that had struck down Executive Order No. 13780 (the so-called “travel ban”) which had suspended the entry of nationals from six designated countries for 90 days. Donald J. Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, et al.; Donald J. Trump v. Hawaii, et al.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

The Court also granted in part Trump’s applications to stay the injunctions issued by the two Courts of Appeals which had prevented the enforcement of his Executive Orders 13769 and 13780. The Court said “all foreign nationals are subject” to the provisions of Executive Order 13780, except “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. For entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course. Students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too is a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience.

Groups seeking to evade Executive Order 13780 will not be allowed to do so. For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

An individ­ual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States will not be barred by Executive Order 13780.

On January 27, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order No. 13769, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States (EO-1).  EO-1 suspended entry of foreign nationals from seven countries identified as presenting heightened terrorism risks—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for 90 days. Executive officials were instructed to review the adequacy of current practices relating to visa adjudica­tions during this 90-day period.  On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13780 (EO-2) modifying EO-1.  EO–2 directed that entry of nationals from six of the seven countries designated in EO–1—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—be “suspended for 90 days from the effective date” of the order.

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 USC § 1182(f)] authorizes the President whenever he finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens

or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, a U.S. District Court in Maryland - relying on the Establishment Clause—enjoined nationwide enforcement of all of §§ 2 and 6 of EO-2. John Doe # 1, a co-petitioner, had an Iranian wife who was seeking entry into the United States. The injunction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 25, 2017, holding that the primary purpose of the ban was religious, in violation of the First Amendment.  The government argued that the Executive Order had a “facially legitimate and bona fide” justification of protecting national security.

In Hawaii v. Trump, a U.S. District Court in Hawaii also enjoined the enforcement of EO-2.  Ismail Elshik, whose Syrian mother in law was seeking entry into the United States, was a co-petitioner. On June 12, 2017, the injunction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the ground that EO-2 exceeded the President’s authority because there was no sufficient finding “that the entry of the excluded classes would be detri­mental to the interests of the United States.”

The Government argued that a 90-day pause on entry is necessary to prevent potentially danger­ous individuals from entering the United States while the Executive reviews the adequacy of information provided by foreign governments in connection with visa adjudica­tions.


In a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas which was joined by Justices Gorsuch and Alito, he said that the preliminary injunctions issued by the Courts of Appeals should be stayed in full because the government meets the two most critical factors in granting a stay (1) the applicant has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits, and (2) the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay. He said “I agree with the Court’s implicit conclusion that the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits – that is, that the judgments below will be reversed.”

(Atty. Tipon has a Master of Laws degree from Yale Law School where he specialized in Constitutional Law. He has also a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines. He placed third in the Philippine Bar Examination in 1956. His current practice focuses on immigration law and criminal defense. He writes law books for the world’s largest law book publishing company and writes legal articles for newspapers. He has a radio show in Honolulu, Hawaii with his son Noel, senior partner of the Bilecki & Tipon law firm, where they discuss legal and political issues. Office: American Savings Bank Tower, 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2305, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. 96813. Tel. (808) 225-2645. E-Mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Website: www.bileckilawgroup.com. He was born in Laoag City, Philippines. He served as a U.S. Immigration Officer. He is co-author with former Judge Artemio S. Tipon of the best-seller “Winning by Knowing Your Election Laws” and co-author of “Immigration Law Service, 1st ed.,” an 8-volume practice guide for immigration officers and lawyers. Atty. Tipon has personally experienced the entire immigration cycle by entering the United States on a non-immigrant working visa to write law books, adjusting his status to that of a lawful permanent resident, and becoming a naturalized United States citizen.)


Trump travel ban dealt another blow, faces high court next

  • Published in U.S.

SEATTLE — Another U.S. appeals court stomped on President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban Monday, saying the administration violated federal immigration law and failed to provide a valid reason for keeping people from six mostly Muslim nations from coming to the country.

The decision by a unanimous three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals helps keep the travel ban blocked and deals Trump a second big legal defeat on the policy in less than three weeks.

The administration said it would seek further review at the U.S. Supreme Court, as it has already done with a ruling against the travel ban by another appeals court last month. The high court is likely to consider the cases in tandem.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions insisted the new decision would harm national security — an argument the judges rejected.

“The executive branch is entrusted with the responsibility to keep the country safe under Article II of the Constitution,” Sessions said in a written statement. “Unfortunately, this injunction prevents the president from fully carrying out his Article II duties and has a chilling effect on security operations overall.”


Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin, who sued to stop the travel ban, said the 9th Circuit ruling “really shows that we have three branches of government and that there are checks and balances. ... So to me, this is everything that we learned in social studies in high school just coming to play exactly the way it should.”

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia last month found the 90-day ban unconstitutional, saying it was “steeped in animus and directed at a single religious group” rather than necessary for national security. It cited the president’s campaign statements calling for a “total and complete shutdown” on Muslims entering the U.S.

The 9th Circuit, which heard arguments in Seattle last month in Hawaii’s challenge to the ban, found no need to analyze those statements. It ruled based on immigration law, not the Constitution.

“Immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show,” the judges said, adding: “National security is not a ‘talismanic incantation’ that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power.”

Judges Michael Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez — all appointed by President Bill Clinton — said the travel ban violated immigration law by discriminating against people based on their nationality when it comes to issuing visas and by failing to demonstrate that their entry would hurt American interests.

The president’s order did not tie citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to terrorist organizations or identify them as contributors to “active conflict,” the court said. It also did not provide any link between their nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism.

“In short, the order does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” the ruling said.


The judges pointed to a June 5 tweet by Trump saying the order was aimed at “dangerous countries.” That helped show he was not assessing whether the six countries had ties to terrorism, they said.

The White House predicted a win at the Supreme Court.

“Frankly, I think any lawyer worth their salt 100 percent agrees that the president’s fully within his rights and his responsibilities to do what is necessary to protect the country,” spokesman Sean Spicer said.

Trump’s suspension of the U.S. refugee program also remains blocked. The 9th Circuit said he was required to consult with Congress in setting the number of refugees allowed into the country in a given year and that he could not decrease it midyear. The refugee program is not at issue in the 4th Circuit case.

The president issued the executive order after the initial version caused chaos and protests at airports and was blocked by a Seattle judge and a different three-judge 9th Circuit panel. The new version was designed to better withstand legal scrutiny and spelled out more of a national security rationale.

Several states and civil rights groups challenged the revised ban, saying it remained rooted in discrimination and exceeded the president’s authority.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii blocked the new version in March, citing what he called “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus” in Trump’s campaign statements.

The 9th Circuit narrowed Watson’s ruling in some minor ways, allowing the administration to conduct an internal review of its vetting procedures for refugees and visa applicants.


Thanawala reported from San Francisco. Associated Press writers Mark Sherman in Washington, D.C. and Jennifer Sinco Kelleher in Honolulu contributed to this report.


This story has been corrected to show Trump tweeted June 5, not June 6.

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Subscribe to this RSS feed


Sign up to keep in touch!

Be the first to hear about special offers and exclusive deals from TechNews and our partners.

Check out our Privacy Policy & Terms of use
You can unsubscribe from email list at any time