Denaturalization Operation

According to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) failure to comply with any eligibility requirement for naturalization is subject to revocation of naturalization. Most recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed civil denaturalization complaints against Baljinder Singh of New Jersey, Parvez Manzoor Khan of Florida, and Rashid Mahmood of Connecticut under Operation Janus. In January 2018, Baljinder Singh of New Jersey, whose fingerprints were missing from the centralized digital fingerprint repository, was denaturalized by the USCIS.

According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), “United States citizenship is not absolute—it may be “lost” in either of two ways: 1) Any citizen, by birth or naturalization, may choose to abandon it voluntarily; or 2) if acquired through naturalization, the government may revoke citizenship if they can prove a person obtained citizenship illegally. Expatriation is the voluntary abandonment of citizenship, while denaturalization is the revocation of naturalization and citizenship by the government.

Denaturalization applies only to people who became citizens through the naturalization process. The rationale for denaturalization is that the individual should not have been granted naturalization in the first place. Therefore, the
government may revoke citizenship if the individual illegally procured or procured citizenship by ‘concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.’ Once citizenship is lost, the person reverts back to their pre-naturalization status.

In the past, denaturalization proceedings were rare and usually brought only against alleged war criminals and in other extreme cases. However, continuing their assault on immigrants, families, and communities of color, the Trump administration has increased resources dedicated to pursuing denaturalization in an effort to strip citizenship from
naturalized citizens.”

This resource, co-created by the ACLU and Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), discusses the Trump administration’s denaturalization operation and describes the process of denaturalization, who the targets are and the number of cases as well as the historical context for these efforts.

This practice advisory, created by the ILRC briefly describes these recent efforts to increase denaturalizations, the legal grounds and process for denaturalizing a citizen, and the consequences of denaturalization.

SAALT’s Guide to Advocacy for Legal Immigration Reform: H-1B and H-4 visas and the South Asian American Community

A Guide to Advocacy for Legal Immigration Reform: H-1B and H-4 visas and the South Asian American Community

Introduction

The South Asian American community is one of the fastest growing demographic groups in this nation and spans a rich diversity of immigration statuses from undocumented to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to asylum seekers to H-1B and H-4 visa holders to green card holders.

As we grow to over five million South Asians in the United States, the diversity of our population has also grown. Nearly half a million Indian-Americans alone are undocumented. As India ranks one of the top ten countries of origin for DACA recipients, 3,600 Indian Americans obtained DACA since 2012.[1] Nearly 1,879 Pakistani Americans and 594 have applied and received DACA.[2]  Over 9,000 Nepali Americans are at risk of losing TPS in June 2019.[3] In fiscal year 2018, South Asians have been detained in 16 out of the 19 border patrol sectors across the country ranging from Rio Grande Valley to Vermont.[4] Since 2015, over 90% of the H-4 visa holders granted employment authorization are from India, and may lose their work permits with an anticipated rule from this current administration.[5]

Our nation’s immigration system has been broken and unjust for centuries: from enslavement to forced migration and displacement to discriminatory quotas based on country of origin to the present day. Today, deportations have rapidly increased, the border has become militarized, citizens are being denaturalized, and authorized immigrants are aging out their visas, being denied work authorization, and unable to obtain green cards.

SAALT has been consistently engaged in the fight for undocumented South Asian Americans, DACA recipients, TPS holders, asylum seekers and refugees, and H-4 visa holders. We believe these populations within our community are the most vulnerable and have the least attention, resources, and advocacy dedicated at the national level.

In today’s fractured political climate, we have observed a disturbing trend. Some immigrant rights advocacy groups are advocating for immigration policies that benefit them, but harm other immigrant groups. One such example is using green card processing fees to fund a border wall, which we discuss in detail later in this guide.

Comprehensive immigration reform that truly transforms our immigration system is the only path forward to address the struggles of all immigrant populations. SAALT does not support any solution, legislative or otherwise, that would advance the rights of one group of immigrants at the direct expense of another group.

In this guide, we lay out SAALT’s perspective on the political and advocacy landscape for H-4 visa holders who stand to lose their hard fought work authorization and H-1B visa holders and others who face indefinite wait times for green cards.

What is an H-4 Visa?

The H-4 visa is issued to spouses and dependent children of H-1B visa holders, also known as “highly skilled workers” employed in specialty occupations requiring relevant bachelor’s or advanced degrees. Since 1997, more than 1.7 million individuals have received H-4 visas. According to the State Department, the overwhelming majority (nearly 90%) of these individuals are of South Asian descent.

In December 2017, the Department of Homeland Security announced its intent to rescind Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) for H-4 visa holders, which will revoke their right to work. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) is expected to be published as early as January, 2019. This proposed rule is a direct outgrowth of this Administration’s “Buy American, Hire American” executive order, which guts employment protections, benefits, and pay for foreign workers, targeting H-1B and L visa holders. Stripping the hard fought work authorization of H-4 visa holders, granted to some spouses and minor children of H-1B visa holders through an Obama-era rule is yet another component of this administration’s anti-immigrant agenda. Please see here for a more detailed guide on this important issue.

What is a “legal DREAMer” and why should I care?

Minor children, who age out of their H-4 visa at the age of 21 and must bridge to a student or other visa to remain in the country, have been called “legal DREAMers” by some advocacy groups.  Please see here for guidance from South Asian immigration attorneys around the country who explain the shared plight, but important distinctions between H-4 visa holders and DACA recipients.

This framing as legal “DREAMers” is flawed. It creates a “hierarchy of the deserving,” utilizing divisive arguments about who should be “first in line” rather than viewing an entirely broken immigration system that serves no one.

What can we learn from DREAMers?

We have many DACA recipients or DREAMers within our own South Asian American community. The DREAMers have been successful in winning over 75% of the American public and Members of Congress, who support them remaining in the country with a path toward citizenship. They have accomplished this because they are unwilling to sacrifice any other group of immigrants to win, all while facing the threat of deportation themselves every day. In fact, they have joined forces with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients to demand that the next Congress pass legislation that combines protections for both DACA and TPS recipients within the first 100 days, which will likely happen.

If they can exemplify this level of leadership and collaboration, then we must follow their example and find ways to jointly address the problems facing authorized and unauthorized immigrants instead of insisting that DREAMers go to the back of the line.

What is H.R. 392 and how does it resolve the green card backlog?

Indians in the U.S. have among the longest wait times for green cards.  The reason? Current immigration policy does not allow one particular country to account for more than 7% of visas leading to a green card in any given year. This means countries that fall below the 7% threshold have much shorter wait times than large countries like India, which has among the longest green card backlogs.

The “Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act of 2017” (H.R. 392 in the House of Representatives & S. 281 in the Senate), first introduced by Rep. Chaffetz of Utah and Rep. Lofgren of CA and most recently championed by Rep. Yoder of Kansas following the murder of Srinivas Kuchibhotla by a white supremacist at a Kansas bar in his Congressional District, would lift the 7% green card cap in an effort to clear significant backlogs. However, helping clear the green card backlog for Indians does not actually eliminate the backlog, it simply moves it around to other countries.

At this time, the language of H.R. 392 has been included in the House appropriations (funding) bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While the Senate passed a Continuing Resolution in an effort to avoid a government shutdown, neither the House nor the Senate passed the actual Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Senate version of this bill does not currently include language about lifting green card caps. If the House language is included in the final version of the appropriations bill, it could pass each chamber and ultimately be sent to the President for signature. Even if the House passes the Continuing Resolution to avoid a government shutdown now, this would only delay the vote on the funding bill until February 8, 2019.

How does H.R. 392 hurt some immigrant groups?

While H.R. 392 has gained wide and even bi-partisan support, its proposal to remove green card caps does not actually increase the number of green cards available, but redistributes them by application date rather than country of origin. This inherently favors nations with much larger demand for green cards, most notably, India. But, this comes at the direct expense of countries with lower demand, who will experience higher wait times. Among South Asian countries, this puts green card applicants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal at a much greater disadvantage.

Between 2015-2017, only 55,000 Pakistanis, 46,000 Bangladeshis 37,000 Nepalis, and 5,300 Sri Lankans obtained green cards. [6] Comparatively, individuals from the top two countries of origin, China and India, obtained 228,000 and 190,000 green cards respectively.

And, this makes it even harder for countries like Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, and Venezuela who fall in this category and are additionally impacted by this administration’s discriminatory immigration policies like the Muslim Ban. Such a proposal all but closes the door on nationals from these countries who want to remain in the country or be reunited with their families. In FY 2017, Indian nationals were the number one beneficiaries of H-1B visas with over 276,000 approved petitions followed by 34,477 visas granted to Chinese nationals. Only 1,643 Pakistanis received H-1B visas; 1,390 Iranis; 1,279 Nepalis; and 900 Venezuelans. [7]

Additionally, not all green card applicants are H-1B visaholders. For example, foreign nurses are not eligible for H-1B visas and must obtain green cards to work in the United States. H.R. 392 would drastically reduce the number foreign-born nurses who could enter the country with green cards from 77% to 100% in the next five years and beyond, devastating the healthcare system. H.R. 392 ignores the real problem, which is a significant mismatch in immigrant visas overall to meet the demand for foreign-born, high-skilled workers across industries.

Why is H.R. 392 not the best solution?

In January, 2018 a “Dear Colleague” letter circulated by Congressional co-sponsors of H.R. 392 from both parties framed H.R. 392 as a potential solution for the “DACA problem.” In it they state, “H.R. 392 can be passed along with amended language containing a fee that can be assessed upon the beneficiaries of the legislation that will raise billions of dollars. These critical funds can be used to enhance the likelihood of passage of a DACA deal, by either enabling Congress to pay for border security or other items in a manner that does not increase deficits, burden U.S. taxpayers, or cause any opposition to the nature of the funding source.” This means the funds from additional green card processing fees would go toward further militarizing the border, possibly even funding this administration’s wall.

In February, 2018 hundreds of Indian-Americans rallied outside the White House supporting this administration’s immigration policies, drawing attention to the green card issue. In particular, they held a sign saying “Dreamers pay for the wall” and offered to pay additional fees toward their green card applications to finance a border wall by supporting H.R. 392.

The South Asian American community must categorically reject such a divisive approach toward immigration reform.

What is a stronger solution?

The Reuniting Families Act, which will be re-introduced in the new Congress, would improve our family-based immigration system, reunite and keep families together, clear the family-based backlogs and eliminate the country caps in both family and employment-based visas, rectifying the backlogs for all those seeking employment-based green cards. At a time when the administration is attacking immigrants from all directions, it is particularly important that we advocate for solutions that strengthen and unite rather than divide our communities.

Please find the full Guide to Advocacy for Legal Immigration Reform here.

[1] “State-Level Unauthorized Population and Eligible-to-Naturalize Estimates” Center for Migration Studies, 2015 http://data.cmsny.org/

[2] Wong, Tom. “DACA AAPI Data” WHIAPPI (2016)

[3] “Temporary Protected Status Designated Country: Nepal” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services https://bit.ly/2KIQU6I

[4] “Border Patrol Arrests CBP Data through April 2018 sort via All < Citizenship < Border Patrol Sector” TRAC Immigration http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/cbparrest/

[5] “Evolution of the H-1B: Latest Trends in a Program on the Brink of Reform” Migration Policy Institute, 2018 https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/H-1B-BrinkofReform-Brief_Final.pdf

[6] “Table 3: Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status by Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Years 2015 to 2017.” Department of Homeland Security https://bit.ly/2ScgTHS

[7] “Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers. Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report to Congress.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services https://bit.ly/2Gl568j

Community Guide on “Public Charge”

On October 10, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed “public charge” regulation. This rule expands the definition of public charge and targets anyone who uses applicable health, nutrition, or housing support programs. If the government determines that someone is likely to become a “public charge,” that person can be refused lawful permanent residence (“green card”),change/extension of non-immigrant visas, or entry into the U.S.

DHS wants to make the public charge test stricter and weigh certain factors more heavily such as age, income, health, and education. If the rule is approved, the government would consider these benefits and criteria under the public charge test:

  • Medicaid
  • Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy
  • Long term nursing home care paid for by the government
  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
  • Federal public housing, Section 8 housing vouchers, and Section 8 rental assistance
  • Immigrant families of four earning less than $63,000 annually

The proposed rule will affect immigrants who are applying for lawful permanent residence (LPR or“green card”), LPRs who have been out of the country for 6+ months, foreign nationals seeking entry orre-entry into the U.S., non-immigrant visa holders who request a change or extension of visas (students, tourist, temporary workers)

The proposed rule will NOT affect: individuals applying for naturalization, citizens, refugees, asylees, VAWA petitioners, T or U visa applicants/holders, and other specific cases.

How does public charge negatively impact South Asians?

  • Nearly 472,000 or 10% of the approximately five million South Asians in the U.S. live in poverty.
  •  Among South Asian Americans, Pakistanis (15.8%), Nepali (23.9%), Bangladeshis (24.2%), and Bhutanese (33.3%) had the highest poverty rates.
  •  Over 10% of green card recipients in FY 2016 were from South Asian countries.
  •  Bangladeshi and Nepali communities have the lowest median household incomes out of all Asian American groups, earning $49,800 and $43,500 respectively.3
  • Nearly 61% of non-citizen Bangladeshi American families receive public benefits for at least one of the four federal programs including TANF, SSI, SNAP, and Medicaid/CHIP, 48% of non-citizen Pakistani families and 11% of non-citizen Indian families also receive public benefits.

If this rule goes into effect, a significant percentage of the nearly 5 million South Asians living in the United States would become a “public charge” simply for using public benefits they are entitled to.

What can you do?

  • If you receive public benefits, you should continue to stay enrolled!
  • Submit a comment: The public is encouraged to submit a comment opposing the discriminatory public charge rule before December 10. Visit SAALT’s campaign page to submit a unique comment explaining how public charge would impact you and your family! We want to submit 500 unique comments representing the nearly 500,000 South Asians living in poverty. Submit here: bit.ly/saaltpubliccharge 
  • Contact your Congressional representative: 202-224-3121 and tell them how this proposed rule would impact you.
  • Review and share SAALT’s Community Guide on Public Charge

SAALT Releases Groundbreaking Voter Guide to Educate, Mobilize South Asian American Community in Preparation for 2018 Midterm Elections

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington, D.C., Today South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) released its 2018 Midterm Election Voter Guide, the only resource designed to engage, educate, and mobilize the growing South Asian American electorate in Congressional districts nationwide.
At over 5 million strong, South Asian Americans are the second-most rapidly growing demographic group nationwide, across longstanding community strongholds and newer regions in the South. As a result, South Asian Americans occupy an increasingly significant position in the American electorate. In this critical election year, South Asian Americans have a stake in key policy questions that affect our communities, and are deeply impacted by issues spanning immigration, civil rights, hate crimes, and the 2020 Census.
The Guide is a voter education tool that equips South Asian Americans and all voters with the crucial information they need to cast informed votes this November. SAALT’s non-partisan 2018 Midterm Election Voter Guide does not endorse any candidate—rather; it analyzes House of Representatives candidates’ positions on four critical issues for South Asian Americans in twenty Congressional Districts with the highest South Asian American populations. The Guide also includes analysis on two additional races that feature a South Asian American candidate and a Congressional district whose Member currently holds a leadership position in the House of Representatives.
Each race shows the Democratic and Republican candidate positions on the issues of immigration, civil rights, hate crimes, and the 2020 Census based upon their responses to a series of questions. SAALT reached out to all candidates with a questionnaire and analyzed publicly available information on their voting records on federal legislation, public statements, and policy platforms to develop our analysis. For all incumbent candidates, SAALT analyzed only their voting record on key legislation to determine their policy positions. All questions are included in the Guide to allow voters to assess a candidate’s positions themselves even if a particular Congressional district is not featured.
SAALT will be distributing its 2018 Midterm Election Voter Guide far and wide in partnership with its 62 community partners in the National Coalition of South Asian Organizations (NCSO), national allies, as well as over social and traditional media. The Voter Guide will be unveiled in-person at this weekend’s The Future of South Asians in the U.S. regional town hall in Niles, Illinois in partnership with Chicagoland NCSO organizations. On Saturday, October 6th from 1-4 pm, this powerful and topical forum will address the impact of U.S. immigration policy on the South Asian American community. The Voter Guide will continue to serve as a critical community education tool that keeps the focus on the important issues impacting our nation on the road to the November 2018 elections and beyond.
CONTACT: Sophia Qureshi, sophia@saalt.org

Last Chance to Force Congress to Vote On and Pass a Clean DREAM Act

Since President Trump terminated the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in September, you have heard about our efforts to speak truth to power. During a 2-day mobilization in Washington, D.C. last month, South Asian DREAMer, leader, and SAALT ally Chirayu Patel asked elected officials at a rally on Capitol Hill, “What is the legacy you want to leave behind?” You heard SAALT’s Executive Director, Suman Raghunathan, demand a clean DREAM Act without any compromises on increased border enforcement that will negatively impact immigrant families.

Over the last three months, DREAMERs have been deported by the thousands, with over 100 DREAMers falling out of status every day because Congress’s failure to act. Additionally, the government is terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for several countries that are still reeling from war, disease, and natural disasters. So far Nicaragua, Honduras, and Haiti have been on the chopping block. Nepal and others could be up next.

We are now at the end of the year and Congress needs to deliver.

Funding for the government expires this Friday, December 8th and Congress plans to pass a short-term Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the lights on. This is likely the last must-pass spending bill of the year, and the last chance for us to get the DREAM Act and TPS legislation through Congress this year.

Here’s what you can do today to force Congress to vote on and pass a clean DREAM Act and TPS legislation now: 

Call your elected officials and tell them why they must include the DREAM Act in the last must-pass spending bill of the year. Urge them to withhold their vote on any spending bill that does not include a clean DREAM Act. It is critical that calls are made this week before a Continuing Resolution is passed on December 8th. Click here to find your Member of Congress.

See below for a sample script!

“I am calling to urge you to sign on to the bi-partisan DREAM Act of 2017. As a South Asian American constituent, I am calling on you to support the DREAM Act now and ensure that it is included in the year-end spending bill. 

This legislation would allow our DREAMers who are as American as you or me to remain in the only country they have ever known or called home. You may be surprised to know that there are at least 450,000 undocumented Indians alone in the U.S. and there are at least 23,000 Indians and Pakistanis who are eligible to remain in the country, be shielded from deportation, and legally work through the DREAM Act.

We need you to exercise courage and leadership on behalf of our families and our communities so we can all thrive. I urge you to sign on to a clean DREAM Act with no border enforcement. Will you commit to voting NO on a year-end spending bill that does not include the DREAM Act? I am happy to share more information if useful or connect you with South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), a national organization representing our communities in Washington, D.C.” 

Understanding the Muslim Bans

The Muslim Bans are a series of discriminatory executive orders and proclamations that the Trump administration has implemented. While the first version, Muslim Ban 1.0, was signed and went into effect on 1/27/2017, within a day of being signed, thousands of individuals across the country rushed to the airports in protest, and significant portions of it were immediately blocked by the federal courts. The administration has continued to issue different versions of the Muslim Ban, which are working their way through the court system.  Just as with Muslim Ban 1.0, the federal courts have temporarily blocked significant portions of the subsequent Muslim Bans, finding them to be blatantly anti-Muslim, unconstitutional, and an abuse of the President’s power. The fight to challenge the Muslim Bans continues.                                               

BEYOND THE BAN: OTHER DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES AGAINST MUSLIMS

Despite intense opposition and criticism from the public, allied legislators, and the federal courts, the Trump administration has also pushed forward other discriminatory policies that share the same goal as the Muslim Bans and target Muslims and other immigrants and communities of Color.

Extreme Vetting (or the Backdoor Muslim Ban) – On 3/15/2017, the Secretary of State called for enhanced screening of nationals of the six countries included in Muslim Ban 2.0. On 5/23/2017, the Office of Management and Budget approved discretionary use of “extreme vetting” questions, including inquiries into social media accounts and extensive biographical and travel information from the last 15 years. Impacts of the policy include a dramatic decline in visa applications; further delays in visa issuance to nationals of Muslim-majority countries targeted by the Muslim Bans; and discriminatory practices while issuing visas.

Ending Temporary Protection Status (TPS) for Sudan – On 9/19/2017, a few days before Sudan was removed from Muslim Ban 3.0, the Trump administration announced an end to TPS for Sudan, effective 11/2/2018. Sudanese TPS holders may be forced to return to a country that is still unstable, despite this being the very reason for originally granting TPS to people from Sudan. These measures raise concerns about what is to come next for over 400,000 people with TPS from different countries.

Slashing Legal Immigration and Cutting Diversity in our Immigration System – On 2/7/2017, Senator Cotton (R-AK) and Senator Purdue (R-GA) introduced a bill that would cut green cards by more than half and end our family-based immigration system. If passed, the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, would cut current levels of legal immigration by over 50%, and eliminate the Diversity Visa Lottery Program, which provides opportunities for countries that send few immigrants – often those with a majority of Muslim and/or Black populations – to apply for a green card.

Slashing Annual Refugee Admissions – On 9/27/2017, the Trump administration drastically lowered the annual refugee admission cap from 110,000 to 45,000, the lowest cap since 1980, and Muslim Ban 4.0 specifically targets countries that account for approximately 80% of all Muslim refugees resettled in the U.S. in the past two years.

 

*The information provided in this document is just a basic summary and is not legal advice. Every person’s situation is different. For legal advice please contact an attorney. For any information regarding the Muslim Bans please contact Subha Varadarajan, Muslim Ban Legal and Outreach Fellow: A project of Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, CAIR San Francisco Bay Area, and National Immigration Law Center at varadarajan@nilc.org *

 

Ban # Date Issued Targeted Populations[1] Impact on Refugees Duration Key Court Actions Current Status
1.0 1/27/17 All refugees and nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen Halted entire program 90 days for all nationals (not dual citizens) of targeted countries; 120 days for refugees; indefinite for Syrian refugees On 2/9/17, the Ninth Circuit held that the Ban should be blocked Revoked by Muslim Ban 2.0 on 3/6/2017
2.0 3/6/17 All refugees and nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen Halted entire program 90 days for all nationals of targeted countries,

120 days for all refugees

On 6/26/17, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) allowed part of the ban to go into effect, applying it to those lacking a bona fide relationship[2] to the U.S. On 9/24/17, the Ban on nationals from the targeted countries expired and on 10/24/17, the Ban on refugees expired. SCOTUS dismissed the cases challenging the ban as moot.
3.0 9/24/17 Most or all nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen and government officials from Venezuela and their families N/A Indefinite On 10/17/17 the Maryland district court in IRAP v. Trump blocked the Ban for all individuals with a bona fide relationship to the U.S[3]

 

Pending review:

On 12/6/17, the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals will hear Hawaii v. Trump, and on 12/8/2017, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear IRAP v. Trump

4.0 10/24/17 Refugees from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan,

Syria, Yemen and any stateless individuals

Halted program for targeted populations and extreme vetting measures for all other refugees Indefinite Challenge filed district court in Seattle (JFS v. Trump) on 11/13/17 Still in effect, preliminary injunction hearing set for 12/21/2017

[1]  Waivers may be granted under circumstances set in each Executive Order or Proclamation.

[2]  As of December 1, 2017, close familial relationship in the U.S or a formal documented relationship with a U.S entity. Familial relationship includes parents (including in-laws and step- parents), spouses, fiancées, children (including step children), siblings (including step and half-siblings), grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins. Formal documented relationship between students and universities; workers and companies; and lecturer invited to speak; among other examples are required.

[3] The Hawaii district court in Hawaii v. Trump initially blocked the Ban for all individuals, BUT on 11/13/17 the Ninth Circuit limited this ruling to only protect those individuals with a bona fide relationship to the U.S.

SAALT thanks our partners at National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) for this infographic.