Judge blocks Trump immigration policy impacting 39 countries

judge strikes – A federal judge ruled Friday that a Trump administration policy enforced by USCIS—adopted after the shooting of two National Guard members—was contrary to law and left immigrants from 39 countries in “indeterminate legal limbo.” The decision bars USCIS from is

For immigrants caught in the paperwork machinery of U.S. immigration benefits, the uncertainty was supposed to end with a decision. Instead, a new policy meant many were left waiting—stuck between requirements they had met and answers the government would not provide.

On Friday, a federal judge struck down a Trump administration immigration policy that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to stay in the United States or enter it, ruling that the policy threw lives into “indeterminate legal limbo.”

The case centered on an administration policy enacted after the shooting of two National Guard members last year. In his ruling, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. said the approach, implemented through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, ignored the law and substituted unsupported claims for the kind of explanations required for federal decisions.

McConnell wrote that in enacting its latest immigration policies. USCIS “claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making.” He added: “In legal terms that means USCIS’s actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The specific policy at issue applied to immigrants from 39 countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Those immigrants were described in the ruling as “categorically barred” from receiving final decisions on a range of applications. including asylum. work permit. green card. and citizenship applications.

The policy’s reach ran through USCIS, the agency that approves applications for immigrants to work and become citizens. USCIS often grants asylum, but only for people who are already in the United States when they apply. Immigration judges handle asylum claims for people stopped at the border. The ruling did not affect immigration judges. and it did not apply to the policies that sparked the lawsuit as they relate to asylum decisions by immigration courts.

For people already navigating the system, the legal fight had been about more than paperwork. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs, said the decision reaffirmed a principle the government could not avoid.

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from. ” Perryman said. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families. workers. asylum-seekers. and communities across the country who were left in limbo. unable to work. access protections. or move forward with their lives.”.

Broad impact was part of the question the judge’s ruling answered. The ruling would impact all pending USCIS cases involving people from the travel ban countries. not just those included in the lawsuit. said Shev Dalal-Dheini. senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

“It is an important legal victory to ensure that legal immigration pathways remain open and that USCIS is held accountable to doing their congressionally mandated job of adjudicating applications,” Dalal-Dheini said.

The ruling landed amid an ongoing effort by the administration to tighten U.S. entry standards for travel and immigration. Critics say those efforts unfairly prevent travel for people from a broad range of countries. The administration suggested it would expand restrictions after the arrest of an Afghan national suspect in the shooting of two National Guard troops over Thanksgiving weekend.

In its attempt to dismiss the case, the government argued that Congress gave the executive branch broad authority over immigration policy, including discretion to confer as well as withdraw discretionary benefits. The government’s motion to dismiss was denied.

In its brief. the government argued that the case rested on “a remarkable premise” that a federal court should stop an agency from issuing the policy guidance that provides government personnel with “the guardrails necessary to ensure consistent. non-arbitrary. and individualized decisionmaking consistent with federal law.”.

After McConnell’s ruling, immigration groups celebrated it.

Jamal Abdi, president at the National Iranian American Council, said the decision sets a standard agencies must follow.

“This ruling sets a powerful precedent that the administration cannot ignore the law as laid down by Congress and cannot arbitrarily bar immigration benefits on the basis of national origin by fiat. ” Abdi said. “Fortunately. this is still a nation of laws. and those who uphold America’s values have recourse to challenge and push back on such discriminatory. arbitrary policies.”.

Shawn VanDiver, a Navy veteran who heads a coalition that supports Afghan resettlement efforts called #AfghanEvac, called the ruling a “significant victory for the rule of law and for thousands of Afghan allies and other immigrants who followed every requirement asked of them.”

VanDiver described what people had told him recently.

“Just this week in Dallas and Fort Worth. we met people who feared losing jobs because delayed work permit renewals threatened their livelihoods. families who postponed education. travel. and homeownership because they did not know when their cases would be resolved. and future Americans who had expected to become citizens only to see their applications stall without explanation. ” VanDiver said.

The decision on Friday did not change asylum procedures handled by immigration judges at the border. But it did strike directly at a USCIS policy that prevented final decisions for immigrants from 39 countries on asylum. work permits. green cards. and citizenship—an intervention that. according to the court. left people waiting without the legal basis USCIS claimed to have.

federal judge immigration policy USCIS National Guard shooting travel ban countries asylum work permits green card citizenship John McConnell Jr. Democracy Forward National Iranian American Council #AfghanEvac