Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Immigration Crackdown

by

motherhood-7114294_1280Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions blocking the Trump administration’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, except in class action lawsuits.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, at least three different lawsuits had secured nationwide injunctions protecting all individuals potentially affected by Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. However, the Court’s ruling scaled back those protections, potentially leaving some children unprotected.

To safeguard all families across the country and address any gaps left by prior legal actions, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class-action lawsuit, Barbara v. Donald J. Trump to stop the government’s enforcement of the order against all current or future babies born or after February 20, 2025, where:

(1) that child’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the child’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said child’s birth, or

(2) that child’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the child’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said child’s birth.

The U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante agreed with the plaintiffs and issued a class-wide preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s executive order from being enforced against any affected baby born in the United States after February 20th.

Continue reading

by
Gavin_Newsom_by_Gage_Skidmore

Attribution: Gage Skidmore

On Friday July 11, 2025, a federal judge ruled that the government’s ongoing immigration raids in Southern California and its denial of legal counsel to detained immigrants likely violates the Constitution.

In so ruling, the court issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) barring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies from continuing these actions in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. (Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem (2:25-cv-05605)

The first TRO prohibits immigration agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and bars law enforcement from relying solely on the following factors—alone or in combination—to form reasonable suspicion for a stop including (1) apparent race or ethnicity (2) speaking Spanish or English with an accent (3) presence in a particular location like a bus stop, car wash, day laborer pick up site, or agricultural site, or (4) the type of work the person does.

The second TRO orders DHS to provide access to counsel on weekdays, weekends, and holidays for those who are detained in B-18, the basement of a federal building in downtown Los Angeles located at 300 North Los Angeles Street.

It further requires immigration officials to develop guidance on how agents and officers should determine whether “reasonable suspicion” exists when conducting stops and to implement training for officers involved in immigration operations.

In addition to immigration officers, the TROs apply to the FBI and Justice Department, who are named in the lawsuit and are involved in immigration enforcement actions.

Continue reading

by

lawyer-3819044_1280The growing presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials at immigration courthouses nationwide has prompted several states to enact laws preventing ICE from arresting or detaining individuals attending their immigration hearings.

One such law passed by the state of New York is the “Protect Our Courts Act,” which shields individuals from being arrested by federal immigration authorities like ICE while traveling to, attending, or leaving court proceedings. This law is designed to guarantee that people can access the justice system without fearing immigration-related repercussions. It forbids arrests in these situations unless a judicial warrant or court order is shown to court personnel.

On June 12th the Justice Department sued the state of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Act under the supremacy clause. The government argues that it unlawfully obstructs federal immigration enforcement operations.

The Trump administration is seeking to invalidate these laws to facilitate detention and removal. According to the government, arrests at courthouses helps prevent individuals from evading authorities and decreases safety risks because of the security offered by courthouses.

In response to the lawsuit, the New York Civil Liberties Union issued a statement defending the state law adding, “This latest attempt by the Trump administration to meddle in our laws would push immigrant communities further into the shadows, throw due process out the window, and weaken trust in our justice system — making everyone less safe. It sends a dangerous message: that ICE can and should operate wherever it wants, regardless of the human cost.”

Continue reading

by

investigation-9604083_1280On June 4, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that the agency will expand its efforts to crackdown on visa overstays, due to a recent terrorist attack in Boulder Colorado. The attack was perpetrated by an Egyptian national who had been in the United States unlawfully since overstaying his visa in 2022.

What this Means

  • Swift policy action: Under Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s directive, federal partners are now reviewing immigration files more aggressively, identifying visa overstays, and initiating enforcement actions
Continue reading

by

passport-8621284_1280

Harvard Travel Ban Blocked by Federal Judge

Earlier this month President Trump had signed an Executive Order suspending the entry of all nonimmigrants and exchange visitors attending Harvard University, for a period of 6 months starting June 4th (the effective date of the proclamation).

Those affected by the executive order were F, J, and M visa holders outside of the United States as of the date of the proclamation. The suspension did not apply to nonimmigrants entering the United States to attend other universities.

Shortly after the executive order was issued, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting its enforcement until the court can rule on the merits of the case.

Following the court’s actions, the State Department ordered embassies and consulates around the world to resume visa processing for Harvard University students and exchange visitors.

As a result, Harvard students can breathe easier. While the preliminary injunction remains in effect, consulates are barred from denying visas to Harvard students and exchange visitors, and visa holders attending Harvard cannot be refused entry to the United States.

For more information, please click here.

Continue reading

by

danilo-rios-bj5y_XuSm58-unsplash-scaledThe Trump administration is not letting up on its campaign to target international students applying for visas at U.S. Embassies and Consulates, beginning with Harvard University students.

On Friday May 30, 2025, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent an internal cable to U.S. Embassies and Consulates worldwide requiring them to “immediately begin additional vetting” for all applicants seeking a visa to travel to Harvard University “for any purpose.”

While the internal cable is not publicly available, its contents have been reviewed by several prominent media outlets including Politico and CNN.

According to their reports, the cable indicates that the State Department has adopted a new policy requiring Consulates and Embassies to review the social media accounts of all nonimmigrant visa applicants seeking to attend Harvard University, including prospective students, current students, faculty members, contractors, guest speakers, and even tourists visiting the university. This initiative, directed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio through a diplomatic cable, is set to begin immediately and serves as a pilot program that is expected to expand to other U.S. schools, colleges, and universities.

The policy specifically targets the identification of antisemitic content and antisemitic viewpoints published on online social media platforms. The cable notes, “the enhanced vetting measures described in this guidance aim at ensuring that consular officers can appropriately identify such visa applicants with histories of antisemitic harassment and violence, and to duly consider the visa eligibility under U.S. immigration law.” Notably, the cable does not specify what specifically would indicate “inadmissible antisemitism” nor does it define online activities that would render an individual ineligible for a visa.

Consular officers are instructed to conduct comprehensive screenings of applicant’s social media accounts, including those set to private. The cable notes that consular officers should determine, either in pre-screening or an interview, if the applicant is seeking to travel to Harvard, and such applicants should be refused a visa “pending review of their online presence.”

Continue reading

by

manu-ros-wvlwZ00eIRk-unsplash-scaledIn recent days, the Trump administration has launched an aggressive campaign targeting international students studying at colleges and universities throughout the United States.

These attacks escalated Thursday last week when the administration first announced that it would be halting Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students by revoking their Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification—a certification that is necessary for U.S. schools to enroll and issue Forms I-20 to F and M international students.

The move sent shockwaves throughout the academic community because it meant Harvard could no longer enroll foreign students, and its more than 7,000 existing international students would be required to transfer or lose their legal status in the United States.

According to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, such drastic steps were taken due to Harvard’s alleged failure to comply with Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) regulations, as well as “encouraging and allowing antisemitic and anti-American violence to rage on its campus and coordinating with Chinese Communist Party officials on training that undermined American national security.”

Less than 24 hours later, Harvard filed a lawsuit in federal court requesting and obtaining a temporary restraining order to block the Trump administration from cutting off its ability to enroll foreign students. The judge found that absent the court order, Harvard would “suffer immediate and irreparable injury.”

Today, that same judge granted Harvard a preliminary injunction extending Harvard’s ability to maintain its SEVP certification intact while the lawsuit moves forward in federal court. This action effectively protects Harvard’s students and allows them to remain in the United States.

Continue reading

by

airport-8081875_1280On Friday May 9, 2025, President Trump signed executive order “Establishing Project Homecoming,”a new White House initiative aimed at encouraging the voluntary departure of undocumented immigrants from the United States.

This new policy offers financial incentives and logistical support to those who facilitate self-deportation, with the stated goal of reducing the fiscal and social burdens associated with deportation to prioritize funding for Americans in need.

Key Provisions of Project Homecoming:

  • Free Government-Funded Flights:Undocumented immigrants are offered complimentary flights to any country willing to accept them, excluding the United States.This service is accessible through the government’s new “CBP Home” mobile application and at participating airport
  • $1,000 Exit Bonus: Individuals who voluntarily and permanently depart the U.S. under this program are allegedly eligible to receive a $1,000 “exit bonus” upon successful relocation.
  • Concierge Travel Assistance: A government-provided concierge service is available at airports to assist individuals, even those lacking valid travel documents from their home countries, in booking flights and navigating the voluntary departure process.

Continue reading

by

pieter-van-de-sande-r6BdUpN_iSk-unsplash-scaledPresident Trump’s first 100 days in office have been marred by controversial actions targeting both legal and illegal immigration.

In its latest move, the Trump administration is going even further by targeting “sanctuary” cities which are state and local jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal immigration law enforcement officials. “Sanctuary” cities have been known to enact policies that prohibit the detention of individuals solely based on their immigration status and restrict the sharing of information about immigrants with federal authorities.

To force them into compliance, the Trump administration has begun filing lawsuits against sanctuary cities seeking to penalize them for their disobedience.

The first of these lawsuits targets Colorado and Denver for impeding federal immigration authorities from carrying out deportations. Denver is one of many states with state laws that prevent state and local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. For instance, a Denver state law prevents the use of the city’s resources to assist with immigration enforcement, while a separate executive order establishes Denver as a “sanctuary city,” welcoming undocumented immigrants.

If Trump has it his way, the lawsuit would undo Colorado’s sanctuary state laws by declaring them unconstitutional and prohibiting their enforcement.

Interestingly, in responding to the lawsuit, the governor of Colorado Jared Polis denied Colorado’s status as a sanctuary state and said that Colorado regularly cooperates with federal law enforcement authorities.

Continue reading

by

donald-trump-4921211_1280On April 28th, President Donald Trump signed two new executive orders that significantly impact U.S. immigration policy and enforcement.

These presidential actions are a continued effort to prioritize national security by enhancing law enforcement capabilities and imposes penalties on “sanctuary” cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

  • Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens

The first executive order entitled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” empowers state and local law enforcement agencies to take stronger action against crime by expanding their authority and increasing investment in prison infrastructure. It also holds state and local officials accountable for obstructing criminal law enforcement or violating civil rights.

Specifically, it directs the Attorney General to prosecute officials who

willfully and unlawfully direct the obstruction of criminal law, including by directly and unlawfully prohibiting law enforcement officers from carrying out duties necessary for public safety and law enforcement; or

unlawfully engage in discrimination or civil-rights violations under the guise of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives that restrict law enforcement activity or endanger citizens.

Continue reading