STATEMENTS AND NEWS:
IABA Applauds Reversal of the Travel Ban, and Will Continue Work to Achieve a Full Reversal and Remedy for those Affected
Breaking News, Latest NewsIranian American Organizations Urge Immediate Release of Dr. Sirous Asgari to Receive Medical Treatment for COVID-19
Breaking News, Latest NewsIABA Statement & Resources on New Immigration Proclamation Restrictions
Breaking News, Latest News, Legal AdvisoryIranian American Organizations Urge ICE to Immediately Release Dr. Sirous Asgari at Risk of Serious Illness and Death from COVID-19
Breaking News, Latest NewsReports of Mass Detentions of Iranians and Iranian Americans at the Washington/Canada Border
Breaking News, Latest NewsThe white supremacist gang member who brutally murdered Shayan Mazroei was found guilty of second degree murder.
Breaking News, Latest NewsIABA and Coalition Partners Send Letter to State Department and DHS about Visa Cancellations
Breaking NewsState Department Releases New Data Showing Dismal Waiver Approvals under the Travel Ban
Breaking NewsIranian American Organizations Strongly Condemn Anti-Semitic Attack on Pittsburgh Synagogue
Breaking News, NewsletterIn Interview, Sitting Senator Lindsey Graham Muses About How “Terrible” It Would Be To Be Iranian
Breaking NewsIABA and Coalition Partners File New Lawsuit Challenging the Travel Ban’s Waiver Provisions
Breaking NewsIranian-American Coalition Files Amicus Brief in Travel Ban Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court
Breaking NewsMarch 22 – Iranian American Organizations Call For Independent Investigation for Sahar Nowrouzzadeh
Breaking NewsCongratulations to Saba Sheibani for Her Appointment to the San Diego County Superior Court
Breaking NewsDecember 25, 2017 – With The Holidays, Some Good News Arrives On The Travel and Refugee Bans, Though The Former Still Remains In Effect, And The Fight Continues
Breaking NewsDecember 5, 2017 – The U.S. Supreme Court Allows Travel Ban 3.0 To Go Into Effect While Legal Challenges To The Ban Proceed Through The Lower Courts
Breaking NewsNovember 1, 2017 – Federal Court To Hear Iranian-American Organizations’ Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0 And The First Challenge To The New Refugee Ban
Breaking NewsOctober 17, 2017 – Hawaii District Court Issues Nationwide Injunction Against Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0, which should be hyperlinked to the attached statement
Breaking NewsOctober 10, 2017 – IABA and Iranian-American Organizations and Individuals Challenge Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0
Breaking NewsSep 25, 2017 – Trump administration issues a sweeping new proclamation, prohibiting nearly all travel for nationals of Iran and six other countries.
Breaking NewsJuly 24, 2017 – IABA, in collaboration with partners, issues Iranian-American Community Advisory: “Know Your Rights at the Airport and the Border” (English translation) (Persian translation) (Know Your Rights Pamphlet)
Breaking NewsJuly 10, 2017 – Exclusive Guidance from IABA for Individuals with Visa-Related Issues under the “Travel Ban” Executive Order
Breaking NewsJun 28, 2017 – IABA makes form available for anyone affected by the “Travel Ban” Executive Order.
Breaking NewsOctober, 16, 2018
In Interview, Sitting Senator Lindsey Graham Muses About How “Terrible” It Would Be To Be Iranian
Dear Members and Friends,
On October 16, 2018, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) publicly mused about how “terrible” it would be to of Iranian heritage. To be clear, his disgust was not aimed at the Iranian leaders or the Iranian regime…his disdain was focused on being Iranian.
The comment occurred during an interview with Fox & Friends. In the context of discussing genetic testing, and after announcing his intention to take his own genetic test, Senator Graham mused: “I’ll probably be Iranian. That’d be, like, terrible.” The blatantly racist remark prompted even Fox host Brian Kilmeade to try to correct that “they are great people, just bad leaders.” You can see his comments here.
Setting aside the offensive nature of the bias reflected in the senator’s statement, what is most disgraceful about it was the casual nature by which a sitting senator, presumably with Iranian American constituents, directed bigotry at a whole ethnic community without a second thought. The Iranian American Bar Association calls on Senator Graham to apologize for, and withdraw, his highly offensive remark.
In the wake of policies like the Travel Ban, and denigration of Muslims and Middle Easterners, the comment should be an additional wake-up call for our community. Many of those who purport to represent us, including those at the highest levels of government, seem to carry express or implied bias towards those of Iranian heritage. The policies they implement, reflect that bias.
While the comment has ignited condemnation and news articles (see for example here or here), the outrage has not been proportionate to the flagrant racism reflected by a U.S. senator. That is why we must make our voices heard. Here are three simple things you can do:
- Call or email Senator Graham’s office and let him know that his casual racist comment is offensive and unacceptable, and demand an apology. Click here to send an email, or call 202-224-5972;
- In a few weeks, get out and vote for representatives who respect those of Iranian heritage, and the issues of interest to our community; and
- Share this information via email and social media.
Remember, if we do not speak out for ourselves, few others will do so on our behalf.
Best,
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
August, 1, 2018
IABA and Coalition Partners File New Lawsuit Challenging Implementation of the “Waiver” Provisions of the Travel Ban
Dear Members and Friends,
A coalition of organizations, including the IABA, have filed a new class action lawsuit (and exhibits) challenging implementation of the “waiver provisions” in the Trump Administration’s Travel Ban. Thanks to all of our co-counsel, organizational plaintiffs, and pro bono counsel (each identified below) who have worked tirelessly on this project; and thanks also to the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA) for their efforts in obtaining information from the Department of State, which was very helpful to the lawsuit. A press release with full information regarding the lawsuit follows:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Groups Challenge the Waiver Component of Trump Administration’s Muslim Travel Ban
Seattle, Wash. – August 1, 2018 – In response to the June 26 U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Trump administration’s Muslim travel ban, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Council on American-Islamic Relations – California, Iranian American Bar Association, Lane Powell PC, National Immigration Law Center and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, in partnership with the Council on American-Islamic Relations – Washington State, have filed a class action lawsuit challenging the Muslim travel ban waiver process on behalf of organizational plaintiffs, OneAmerica and Pars Equality Center, as well as individual plaintiffs from all of the Muslim-majority countries subject to the travel ban.
The current waiver process is inconsistent and arbitrary, and so few visa applicants have actually been granted a waiver, that the process by which waivers are supposedly granted has become mere window dressing for the ban itself. This lawsuit seeks to hold the Trump administration accountable for its failure to implement a good-faith, lawful, and constitutional waiver process so that families who qualify for waivers under the terms of the Proclamation actually receive them and are issued visas.
Since December 2017, countless individuals and families have been denied a visa and a waiver under the Muslim travel ban without notice of the process, an opportunity to submit evidence, or consideration under the waiver scheme. According to the State Department, only 2 percent of applicants have received waivers and former U.S. consular officials have called the process “fraudulent.”
“The administration’s sham ‘waiver’ and its haphazard process have failed to provide a fair and meaningful opportunity for relief from the travel ban, which continues to separate families and upend lives,” said organizational plaintiff Pars Equality Center’s Managing Attorney. “The courts have been an important bulwark to protect the rights of those targeted by this administration’s discriminatory immigration policies, and we hope they continue in this important role today.”
The purpose of this lawsuit is to force the government to clarify and implement a waiver process for those individuals who would otherwise be permanently banned from the country. The plaintiffs are asking the Court to require the government to provide a meaningful opportunity to access what is, for most, the only means to reunite with family under an otherwise permanent ban.
This lawsuit is part of a larger attempt to fight against the Muslim travel ban and represents affected communities for every Muslim-majority country targeted in the ban. Through this lawsuit and additional measures, the co-counsel organizations will continue to push for equity and accountability, and fight the travel ban through every possible avenue – in court, on the streets, and through mobilization and policy/legislative change. Having national travel bans on entire groups of people based on religious belief or countries of origin devalues America’s shared cultural emphases on equality and acceptance.
Best,
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
July, 2, 2018
New Information Regarding Travel Ban “Waivers” Continue to Show Disturbing Trend
Dear Members and Friends,
As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld Presidential Proclamation 9645, also known as Travel Ban 3.0. In doing so, the Court (like the government) has cited the “system of waivers” contained within the Travel Ban as a means for individuals to get relief from its strictures. However, evidence uncovered to date by Iranian American organizations shows that the so-called waiver process is not what the government claims.
A coalition of Iranian-American organizations, including the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), Iranian American Bar Association (IABA), and the Pars Equality Center, have been working with the office of Senator Chris Van Hollen (and some of his colleagues) in seeking an explanation of, and accountability on, the “waiver provisions” outlined in the Travel Ban. As a result of those prior efforts by PAAIA, IABA, and Pars Equality Center, the State Department initially released a clarification letter back in February 2018, which provided some disturbing statistics on the implementation of the waiver program. Since then, our organizations have continued working with Senator Van Hollen to obtain additional information on the so-called waiver system. In response to those efforts, on June 22, 2018, the State Department provided, for a second time, the only additional, formally available information and statistics on the waiver system.
The new information provided continues to show a disturbing trend: in the words of Supreme Court Justice Breyer, the so-called waiver system appears to be merely “window dressing” to cover the real intent of preventing the entry of people on the basis of national origin and religion into the US. The statistics from the State Department confirm that, as a result of the Travel Ban, out of the more than 28,000 relevant visa applications submitted as of April 30, 2018, only 579 were “cleared for waivers” – and it is unclear how many of those people have actually received their visas. In other words, in the six months that the Travel Ban has been in place (between December 2017 and April 2018), a mere 2% of applicants have been “cleared for waiver,” and far fewer have actually received a visa. The response letter also continues to provide vague descriptions of the already ambiguous criteria set for assessment of waivers, without providing any clarity on the standards or processes being used by the State Department.
These results are, of course, consistent with the amicus brief that our organizations filed in support of the Hawaii case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was repeatedly cited by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor during oral arguments, and which confirmed that consular officers routinely fail to consider visa applicants’ waiver requests. These results are also consistent with recent news articles on waivers, including reports that waivers remain elusive or that (according to two former consular officers) the waiver process is a “fraud.“
The overwhelming number of waiver rejections, including those for people who satisfy the conditions identified in the Travel Ban itself, leads to the conclusion that a near complete travel ban remains in effect despite the government’s repeated denial to the courts and the people; and that the waivers are simply “window dressing” for the Trump Administration’s Travel Ban policies.
IABA, PAAIA, and Pars Equality Center thank Senator Van Hollen for his leadership on this important issue. We will continue to work with him, legislatures, and other groups, to try to overturn or mitigate the effects of this discriminatory policy, and to hold the Trump Administration to account on the so-called waiver provisions of the Travel Ban.
Best,
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
June, 26, 2018
In Split Decision, U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban
Dear Members and Friends,
Today, in a 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the latest version of President Trump’s Travel Ban (also known as Muslim Ban 3.0). Reversing the lower courts, the Supreme Court found the Ban to be a lawful exercise of the broad discretion granted the president to suspend entry of aliens into the U.S, under section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Per the majority’s ruling, the president was only required to determine that entry of the banned aliens “would be detrimental to interests of U.S.,” and the Court found that President Trump did so largely pursuant to the worldwide review conducted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its subsequent recommendations.
Similarly, in rejecting the Establishment Clause challenge to the Ban, the majority said it considered the significance of President Trump’s numerous statements revealing his anti-Muslim sentiment, but applied an extremely deferential rational basis review to examine if the ban is “plausibly related to the Government’s stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes.” In so doing, the Court was willing to disregard all of President Trump’s discriminatory statements because the Travel Ban was neutral on its face, said it was for legitimate reasons (such as improving vetting processes), and came after a review and recommendation by the DHS. The full text of the Court’s decision can be found here.
As you know, IABA, in collaboration with PAAIA and Pars Equality, has actively sought to protect the community from the appalling effects of the Ban from its inception. That coalition also issued a statement, which can be found here.
Without doubt, today’s decision is disheartening, and a blow to civil rights, especially for the Iranian American community. But the fight over this discriminatory policy is not over. First, today’s decision is limited to the question of whether the policy violated the law, as written; a separate question remains as to whether the Trump Administration implemented the policy, and its so-called waivers, in an unlawful manner. Second, we can continue to push for a change in this biased policy though legislative action and advocacy. We ask that you stay engaged and support our efforts to fight this discriminatory policy (and to mitigate its devastating effects), whether through the courts, advocacy, or legislation.
Please stay tuned.
Best,
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
April 25, 2018
The U.S. Supreme Court Holds Oral Arguments on the Travel Ban
Dear Members and Friends,
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments on the latest version of the Travel Ban in the Hawaii case (formally Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. State of Hawaii). As you all know, after the first two iterations of Trump’s Travel Ban were halted in the lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the third version to go into effect while the lower courts continued to hear the pending legal challenges to it. Thereafter, the Hawaii case made its way through the lower courts again, where Ninth Circuit again found that the Travel Ban was illegal. In today’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court again reviews the Hawaii case ruling (subsequently, the IRAP case in the Fourth Circuit also ruled that the new Travel Ban was unlawful, though the ruling was not issued in time to be joined with these oral arguments).
As you know, IABA-in collaboration with PAAIA and Pars Equality-and with the assistance of pro bono counsel Mehri & Skalet and Arnold & Porter, has actively sought to protect the community from the appalling effects of the Travel Ban from its inception. It began when our coalition filed legal challenges to all three iterations of the Travel Ban in court, in which we emphasized the effects of the Travel Ban specifically on the Iranian American community. Since then we have worked with senators to obtain the only publicly available information on the devastating effects of the so-called “waiver provisions” of the Ban. And just last month we filed an amicus brief in support of Hawaii and other plaintiffs in today’s oral arguments (which cited and discussed in oral arguments before the Supreme Court today).
As of now, it is unclear how the Supreme Court will rule. It was initially believed that the Supreme Court might find a “compromise” position similar to the “bona fide relationship” requirement it imposed in its decision regarding Travel Ban 2.0 (i.e. exempting anyone from the ban who had a bona fide relationship to a U.S. person or entity). However, the Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling permitting Travel Ban 3.0 to go into full effect while legal challenges continued have called that prediction into question. The Supreme Court will likely be hesitant to issue a ruling constitutionally limiting executive power, especially as to immigration and national security, but will also have to face express discriminatory statements made by this president about the Travel Ban, which has been confirmed by every lower court to have analyzed his statements.
As always, we will keep you apprised of the situation. And regardless of how the Supreme Court ultimately rules, our coalition promises to continue to fight the discriminatory policies underlying the Travel Ban, and to mitigate its devastating effects on our community (and others), whether through the courts, advocacy, or legislation.
Best,
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
April 3, 2018
Iranian-American Coalition Files Amicus Brief in Travel Ban Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court
Dear Members and Friends,
On Friday, March 30, 2018, the Iranian American Bar Association (IABA), Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), and Pars Equality, filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting the State of Hawaii’s challenge to the Trump administration’s Travel Ban 3.0.
As many of you know, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Travel Ban 3.0 to go into full effect while the lower courts reviewed the case. In that time, Iranian American organizations have witnessed the devastating impact and hardship faced by Iranians unable to obtain a visa, specifically under the so-called “waivers” in most recent version of the Travel Ban. Our amicus brief highlights, through statistical and testimonial evidence, how countless applicants — such as relatives of Iranian Americans (U.S. citizens and green card holders), students, and even those with urgent medical needs — have been summarily denied visas, or have pending “waiver requests” to obtain a visa, under a system seemingly not governed by any consistent or recognizable guidelines, standards, or processes, and which seems designed to deny nearly all applicants. Our amicus also highlights the legal flaws with this so-called “waiver process” for the Supreme Court, including showing how it is a “separate and inherently unequal alternative to the visa process,” which lacks sufficient procedural safeguards and poses “grave equal protection and due process concerns.”
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument on the case on April 25, 2018. For more information on the Travel Ban, and our efforts, please visit: endthetravelban.com.
Finally, if you know anyone who has been denied a visa, and particularly a “waiver,” under Travel Ban 3.0, or otherwise continues to be affected, please have them fill out our form.
Thank you,
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
March 6, 2018
Promised Travel Ban Waivers Never Delivered, As State Department Statistics Reveal Complete Travel Ban in Effect
Dear Members and Friends,
As many of you know, a coalition of Iranian-American organizations, including the Iranian American Bar Association (IABA), Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), and the Pars Equality Center, along with their legal counsel, worked with the offices of Senators Chris Van Hollen and Jeff Flake in seeking an explanation on the “waiver provisions” outlined in the Presidential Proclamation 9645 (the Proclamation) also known as Travel Ban 3.0. As a result of those efforts by IABA, PAAIA, Pars Equality, and their legal counsel, the State Department recently released a clarification letter on how the waivers are being processed. In response, today, the coalition released the following joint statement regarding the State Department’s “clarification letter”:
“As Iranian American civil rights and advocacy organizations, we are extremely concerned with the State Department’s response to Senators Chris Van Hollen and Jeff Flake’s request that the administration provide information on the criteria, policies, and procedures for the waivers authorized under the Proclamation.
As a result of the Proclamation, all but 2 visas out of 6,555 waiver applications have been denied between December 8th and February 15th. Reuters recently reported that some limited additional waivers have been approved since February 15th (though this information has not been confirmed by the State Department). Consular officers rarely, if ever, accept visa applicants’ waiver packets and supporting documents, thereby leaving no reason to believe that waivers are being appropriately adjudicated pursuant to the Proclamation. The State Department appears to have failed to implement key provisions of the Proclamation that are intended to provide relief to individuals from affected countries.
The response letter also provides vague descriptions of the already ambiguous criteria set for assessment of waivers. In addition, the wholesale rejection of waiver requests compels the conclusion that there is a complete travel ban in effect by the administration. Over 8406 people from the affected countries filed visa applications, traveled long distances at great expense to go through the charade of a visa interview. With what appears to be a 3 out of 10,000 chance of overcoming all the hurdles to get to a visa to travel, one can only ask why visa interviews are being scheduled at all.
We respectively request a meeting with appropriate representatives at the Department of State and Department of Homeland Security to discuss the implementation of the “waiver” program in fuller detail.”
PAAIA, IABA, and Pars Equality Center are committed to protecting the civil liberties of Iranian Americans and will continue to advocate against the discriminatory travel ban. The three organizations along with over 25 individual plaintiffs are also challenging President Trump’s latest iteration of the travel and refugee bans in Federal court.
The brief and declarations on the Iranian American organization federal lawsuit can be found at www.endthetravelban.com.
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
March 6, 2018
Travel Ban Update:
The Fourth Circuit’s Recent Opinion,
and Ongoing Efforts of IABA
Dear Members and Friends,
We wanted to give you another update on the Travel Ban.
In a bit good news, on February 15, 2018, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals again found that the latest version of President Trump’s Travel Ban (a.k.a. the Muslim Ban), which indefinitely bans large populations of people from Iran and five other Muslim-majority countries from travel to the U.S., is unconstitutional and violates the Establishment Clause. While long, the opinion was poignantly direct and did not mince words in its findings. A few of the highlights include: (1) the court found it “hard to imagine how an objective observer could come to any other conclusion” than that the President’s “primary purpose” is “to exclude Muslims from the United States;” (2) the court found that the “Proclamation’s invocation of national security is a pretext for anti-Muslim religious purpose;” and (3) the court rejected any argument that the newest Proclamation “cured” the issues of the prior versions, finding instead that Mr. Trump “continued to disparage Muslims and the Islamic faith.” And perhaps, most notably, the Fourth Circuit found “undisputed evidence of [anti-Muslim] bias: the words of the President,” himself. To read the full opinion, click here.
This opinion was different from the Ninth Circuit opinion, which would have enjoined the most recent Ban based on statutory grounds. You can find that order here. While this is good news, please remember that the Ban remains in effect until the U.S. Supreme Court reviews the decisions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, which is expected to be in June of this year.
In the meantime, IABA continues its efforts with the Travel Ban. For example, we recently worked with our coalition partners (PAAIA and Pars Equality) and Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), in sending a bipartisan letter to the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to seek clarification on the “waiver provisions” outlined in President Trump’s latest Travel Ban. A full statement of the same can be found here.
We will also support the efforts of the parties and organizations before the U.S. Supreme Court. And we will continue to examine means of challenging the Travel Ban, including its recently implemented “waiver” provisions. To that end, we still need your help in collecting information. If you know anyone who has been denied a visa, and particularly a waiver under the Travel Ban, please have them fill out our form.
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
December 25, 2017
Dear members and friends,
With the passing of Yalda (the longest night of the year), the arrival of the holidays, and impending New Year, some good news arrives regarding President Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0, and the more recent “Refugee Ban” (a.k.a. Executive Order 4.0). We share these with you, along with our best wishes for your holidays, and the hope that the next year will bring better days for you, your families, and your friends.
On Friday December 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Hawaii v. Trump finding that Travel Ban 3.0 violates federal law. Unfortunately, Travel Ban 3.0 remains in full effect and this decision has no immediate impact on Iranians seeking to obtain visas to the U.S. Given the prior U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the final word on the legality of Travel Ban 3.0 will depend on a review of this Ninth Circuit decision (and the anticipated Fourth Circuit decision in IRAP v. Trump) by the Supreme Court.
Separately, on Saturday, December 23, 2017, a federal district judge in Seattle partially blocked President Trump’s restrictions on refugee admissions from 11 mostly Middle Eastern and African countries (the “Refugee Ban”), holding that such restrictions could not be enforced as to individuals with a “bona fide” relationship with a U.S. person or entity.
We discuss the details of each of these cases further below. However, if you know anyone who is affected by Travel Ban 3.0 or the Refugee Ban, please contact us immediately by clicking here and filling out our form. And please share this form with others, so they can do the same. You can help us continue to fight to protect the rights of our community, and others, are affected by these discriminatory bans.
Ninth Circuit Ruling on Travel Ban 3.0
The Ninth Circuit was called on, for a third time, to rule on the legality of Travel Ban 3.0. And, on this third occasion, it again confirmed the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that: (1) Travel Ban 3.0 violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), including the INA’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of visas; (2) the President exceeded the scope of his authority under the INA (the Court did not reach constitutional challenges to Travel Ban 3.0 under the Establishment Clause); and (3) the President is without separate constitutional authority to issue Travel Ban 3.0. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court of Hawaii’s preliminary injunction against the Travel Ban, but narrowed it to include only foreign nationals who have a “bona fide” relationship with a U.S. person or entity. You can read the full decision here.
Washington District Court Ruling on the Refugee Ban
After a prior executive orders on refugee admissions, on October 24, 2017, President Trump issued another executive order that “paused” refugee admissions from 11 countries, nearly all from the Middle East and Africa, pending a 90 day security review which is set to expire in late January 2018. The countries consist of Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. News reports examining the issue have reported that numbers of vulnerable refugees from these countries, usually escaping danger and war, have plummeted since enactment of the administration’s policies. On December 23, 2017, the Washington District Court ruled that the Trump Administration could conduct the security review; but had exceeded statutory authority under the INA and Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) when it stopped processing and admitting refugees from the 11 countries who had a “bona fide” relationship to a U.S. person or entity. The ruling also orders the government to restart the “follow-to-join” program (also “paused” by the executive order), which allows family members of refugees to follow them the U.S. You can read the full decision here. This is unlikely to the last word on the issue, as the case will undoubtedly be appealed.
The foregoing is certainly welcome news in the ongoing fight to stop the impact of these discriminatory bans on our community, and others similarly targeted. But, as noted above, these decisions do not resolve the legal disputes, which will likely only happen when the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in. As always, we will continue to provide you with information as quickly as we can, and we vow to continue this fight on behalf of the Iranian American community, and others, with both our coalition partners and other allies. We ask that help our efforts by:
1. Notifying us, by clicking here and filling out this form, if you know anyone who continues to be affected by Travel Ban 3.0,
2. Donating to IABA so it can continue its efforts in protecting our rights,
3. Donating your time or expertise, especially in the areas of immigration law by contacting us at iaba@iaba.us, and
4. Sharing this statement with as many friends, families, and colleagues as possible to help us spread the word.
Best wishes to you and your loved ones this holiday season. We hope that you take this time to renew your commitment to remain engaged.
Sincerely,
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
December 5, 2017
Unfortunately, yesterday (December 4), the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the stays on the Trump Administration’s Travel Ban 3.0, allowing it to go into effect in its entiretywhile the legal challenges to Travel Ban make their way through lower courts. The ruling is extremely disappointing, and clearly a setback to those challenging the Travel Ban, especially given President Trump’s ongoing comments and communications evincing his discriminatory intent. But it is important to note that today’s ruling does not decide whether the Travel Ban is lawful. That issue remains very much in dispute, and IABA – with its coalition partners, Pars Equality and PAAIA – have vowed to continue the fight to overturn the Travel Ban, as have our allies in the fight.
We provide you with a more detailed overview of the current situation below:
The Travel Ban also states that it does not apply to individuals who were in the U.S., or who already had valid visas, on the “effective date” of the ban: i.e. as of September 24, 2017 for those without a “bona fide relationship;” and October 18, 2017 for those witha “bona fide relationship.” For these individuals, the Travel Ban should still not apply, by its own terms. However, as of now, there is uncertainty about the “effective date” for any visas issued between September 24/October 18 to the present (i.e. during the “injunction period”). The Trump Administration may still consider the “effective date” to be the original dates in the Travel Ban (September 24/October 18), or it may decide that the effective date will be the day the Supreme Court lifted the injunctions and allowed the Travel Ban to proceed (or another date chosen by the administration).
November 1, 2017
Federal Court To Hear Iranian-American Organizations’ Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0 And The First Challenge To The New Refugee Ban
Dear members and friends: on November, 2, 2017, the Iranian American Bar Association (IABA) and a joint coalition of Iranian-American organizations (consisting of Pars Equality Center and PAAIA), and individual Iranian-American Plaintiffs, are challenging dimensions of President Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0 and, for the first time by any group or organization, the administration’s October 24th Executive Order targeting refugees. A joint statement by the Iranian-American organizations, including IABA, Pars, and PAIAA follows:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Aurora Matthews (301-221-7984)
LAWSUIT ARGUES TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER TARGETS REFUGEES FROM 11 PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM COUNTRIES, DESPITE PLEDGEES TO END BAN
Iranian-American organizations and individual plaintiffs file supplement to lawsuit challenging Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0
WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 26, 2017) – Three prominent Iranian-American organizations and 16 individuals have filed legal papers challenging President Trump’s October 24th Executive Order, which they argue targets refugees from Iran and 10 other African and Middle Eastern countries. The papers are a supplement to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction the groups filed earlier this month against the Trump Administration’s Travel Ban 3.0.
“Packaged as an end to the Trump Administration’s refugee ban, in fact, this Executive Order is the precise opposite: It’s a plain and insidious effort to carry out Trump’s promises for a Muslim ban, targeting refugees from 11 Middle Eastern and African countries,” said Cyrus Mehri, founding partner of Washington, DC-based firm Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, who represents the plaintiffs.
On October 24, the Trump Administration issued a new Executive Order, which it released alongside a DOS/DHS/DNI memorandum, initiating a new 90-day review period of its refugee program. During this time, according to the memo and Order, the United States will prioritize refugee applications for those who are not nationals of 11 countries.
While the Administration has not officially named the 11 countries referred to in the Memorandum, all reporting points to the fact that Iran is one of the 11 countries, and that the other countries are all in Africa and the Middle East. During these 90 days, refugees from the 11 countries will be admitted only on a “case-by-case basis” if their admission is deemed to be “in the national interest” and “pose no threat to the security or welfare of the United States.” In effect, this is a ban on refugees from Iran and the other 10 countries for the next 90 days. And because the Trump administration has determined that the United States will only admit 45,000 refugees this fiscal year, no Iranian refugees, nor any refugees from the other named countries, will be admitted to the United States for at least another full year.
The October 24 Executive Order thus denies sanctuary to three individual Plaintiffs in the lawsuit: Reza Zoghi, an Iranian political dissident who, after multiple periods of imprisonment and torture, fled Iran with his family; Jane Doe #8, a lesbian refugee who fled Iran after experiencing repeated sexual assault; and Jane Doe #9, a transgender refugee who fled Iran after experiencing sexual assault and being expelled from school.
When read in conjunction with the September 24 Proclamation as it must be, it is plain that the October 24th Executive Order is an effort to keep carrying out Trump’s promises to enact a Muslim ban.
“The Administration’s September 24th Executive Order, its 3rd attempt at a travel ban targeting Muslims, inflicts the same harm as the last two versions. So does the October 24th proclamation, which targets vulnerable refugees,” the organizations said in a joint statement.
The President’s September 24 Proclamation, among other things, indefinitely bans all immigrant and almost all nonimmigrant visas to Iranian nationals and bans all immigrant visas and many non-immigrant visas to the nationals of five other majority-Muslim nations, which two courts have already determined violates either federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
The three organizations – Pars Equality Center, Iranian American Bar Association and Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA) – along with individual plaintiffs, previously challenged the Trump administration’s first, second, and third Travel Bans. In May, federal judge Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued an order indicating that she was seriously troubled by the government’s actions but would not step in unless the injunctions that were active at the time were rolled back. Plaintiffs now seek protection for refugee applicants harmed by the October 24 Executive Order.
Pars Equality Center, the Iranian American Bar Association and the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans as well as the individual plaintiffs filed this case on February 8 and amended it on March 15. The plaintiffs are represented by the civil rights law firm Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP.
The supplemental motion, along with previous filings, media and other information, can be found at endthetravelban.com.
Iranian American Bar Association
Babak Yousefzadeh, President
Ramin Montazeri, Vice President
Samy Sadighi, Secretary, Los Angeles Chapter Representative
Ali Assareh, At Large Board Member
Affi Eghbaldari, San Diego Chapter Representative
Reza Golesorkhi, At Large Board Member
Maryam Jazini-Dorcheh, New York City Chapter Representative
Nina Kani, Orange County Chapter Representative
Afsanieh Rassti, Phoenix Chapter Representative
Saiena Shafiezadeh, At Large Board Member
Stefan Shaibani, At Large Board Member
Montra Yazdani, D.C. Chapter Representative
We have some good news. On Tuesday, October 17, 2017, the U.S. District Court in Hawaii issued an order blocking enforcement of President Trump’s newest version of his Travel Ban, nationally, before it could go into effect. The Hawaii District Court found that Version 3 “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor.” The full order can be found here.
The District Court found that Travel Ban 3.0 violated the mandates of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for two reasons. First, the ban’s stated policy, protecting the U.S. “from terrorist attacks and other public-safety threats,” did not fit the restrictions actually imposed: the indefinite ban of more than 150 million nationals of the six specified countries. Second, the ban ” improperly use[d] nationality as a proxy for risk,” and therefore “plainly discriminate[d] based on nationality” in a manner that that runs counter to the mandates of the INA and “the founding principles of this Nation.”
On the first point, the court noted that the President’s broad discretion over entry of aliens into the U.S. under the INA still required that he make a sufficient finding that “that entry of all nationals from the [list of] designated countries … would be harmful to the national interest.” Here, however, Travel Ban 3.0 made no finding that nationality reflected a heightened security risk. Further, the ban contained “internal incoherencies that markedly undermine[d] its stated ‘national security’ rationale.” For example: (1) many countries failed the global criteria, but only several were designated under Travel Ban 3.0; and (2) of the countries designated, the scope of restrictions for some countries (like Venezuela) were significantly less than others, though they were identified as posing similar security concerns. Lastly, the ban did not reveal why existing law was insufficient to address the President’s stated concerns.
Regarding the second point, the Court noted that the INA prohibited any nationality-based discrimination in issuing immigrant visas. And by “indefinitely and categorically suspending immigration from the six countries,” Travel Ban 3.0 “attempts to do exactly what [the INA] prohibits”: singling out immigrant visa applicants on the basis of nationality.
Having found that Travel Ban 3.0 likely violated provisions of the INA, the Court declined to reach the constitutional issues raised.
With this order, Travel Ban 3.0 has been temporarily blocked. But we do not expect that all issues surrounding our community members (and their families) getting visas will be resolved. And there is little doubt that further legal proceedings will follow. Please stay tuned for additional updates. In the meantime, please continue to:
- Notify us, by clicking here and filling out this form, if you know anyone who continues to be affected by Travel Ban 3.0;
- Please sign our joint petition to the U.S. Congress, requesting that it ” Rescind the Muslim Ban Immediately;“
- Share this statement, as well as the above form and petition, with your friends, families, and professional networks; and
- Donate to IABA so it can continue its efforts in protecting our rights.
Babak Yousefzadeh
October 10, 2017
Dear members and friends,
On Monday, October 9, 2017, the Iranian American Bar Association and a joint coalition of Iranian-American organizations and individual Iranian-American Plaintiffs renewed their challenge President Trump’s newest iteration of his Travel Ban, and will seek to enjoin it before it goes into effect on October 18, 2017. A copy of the Amended Complaint can be found on the IABA website. A joint statement by the Iranian-American organizations, including IABA, Pars Equality, and PAAA, with more information follows:
October 10, 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Aurora Matthews 301-221-7984.
LAWSUIT ARGUES TRUMP’S LATEST TRAVEL BAN CONTINUES TO TARGET IRANIAN-AMERICANS, EXACERBATES HARM OF PREVIOUS BAN ORDERS.
Iranian-American organizations and 13 individual plaintiffs file challenge to Travel Ban 3.0, ask for response before EO takes effect Oct 18.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 10, 2017) – A new court filing in federal court in Washington D.C. challenging President Trump’s latest iteration of the travel ban seeks to protect Iranian Americans in the United States and abroad. The lawsuit, filed by three prominent Iranian-American organizations as well as 13 individual plaintiffs, outlines the ways the policy is hurting families, professional and business opportunities, as well as the expansive Iranian-American community.
“The latest Presidential Proclamation on vetting capabilities is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. As a permanent and more sweeping Travel Ban than its two predecessors it is even more egregious and will cause even more harm to Iranian American families and the contributions Iranian Americans make to the U.S. economy and society,” said Cyrus Mehri, founding partner of Washington, DC-based firm Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, who represents the plaintiffs. “I am very proud of our courageous individual clients and our dedicated organizational clients who continue to fight to protect the Iranian American community.”
The President’s September 24 Proclamation, among other things, indefinitely bans all immigrant and almost all nonimmigrant visas to Iranian nationals and bans all immigrant visas and many non-immigrant visas to the nationals of five other majority-Muslim nations. Based on State Department historical data, it is estimated that 60 percent of visas subject to the ban would have been issued to Iranian nationals. On October 5, the government — citing the September 24 Proclamation — asked that the injunctions currently in place be lifted, with no provisions to allow visas for individuals with bona fide relationships with entities or individuals in the United States. The September 24 Proclamation will take effect at 12:01 a.m. on October 18, 2017.
A motion to lift the stay along with an amended complaint detailing the unlawful harm to 13 individuals was filed in federal court before Judge Tonya S. Chutkan who in April conducted the only evidentiary hearing on Travel Ban 2.0 and who issued an order expressing concerns about the Travel Ban.
• The Complaint has compelling examples from 13 individuals. Among the plaintiffs are: Mohammed Jahanfar, whose fiancé is in Iran studying for her Master’s. Jahanfar, who served in the U.S. Navy and currently lives in California, is worried he and his fiancé will be unable to get married and live together. He says he joined the military in order to give back to his country, but never imagined the government would keep him from his loved ones.
• Reza Zoghi fled Iran with his family to escape violent persecution. He, along with his wife and three-year-old daughter, successfully completed the vetting process for resettlement, but they remain in indefinite limbo in Turkey, where he is unable to work and his daughter will be unable to enroll in school.
• Another plaintiff, who holds dual citizenship from the U.S. and Iran, is pregnant with her first child in New York City. With her husband working full time and no other close relatives nearby, her mother is trying to move from Iran to help care for her grandchild. But the process continues to be on hold.
The three organizations – Pars Equality Center, Iranian American Bar Association (IABA) and Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA) – along with individual plaintiffs, now seek to lift the stay in this case and seek to enjoin Travel Ban 3.0.
Pars Equality Center, IABA and PAAIA, as well as the individual plaintiffs, filed this case on February 8 and amended it on March 15. The plaintiffs are represented by the civil rights law firm Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP.
The brief and declarations, along with other information can be found at www.endthetravelban.com.
Iranian American Bar Association
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
September 27, 2017
Dear members and friends,
As you are aware, on September 24, 2017, the Trump administration issued sweeping new travel restrictions, prohibiting nearly all travel for foreign nationals of Iran (and several other countries). The language of the new proclamation (Travel Ban 3.0) can be found here. You can also find IABA’s summary of the key parts of the new travel ban here.
Given the new proclamation, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken off calendar the scheduled oral arguments in the Hawaii and IRAP cases, the two prior challenges to the Travel Ban 2.0, and requested supplemental briefing on whether parts of the issue are now moot. More legal challenges to the new Travel Ban 3.0 will undoubtedly follow.
Substantively, Travel Ban 3.0 continues to target primarily nationals of Muslim-majority countries. While the new proclamation includes two non-Muslim-majority countries (North Korea and Venezuela), these additions appear to be nominal at best, and make up only a tiny fraction of those subject to the travel ban. Based on available information, the vast majority of the individuals affected by Travel Ban 3.0 remain nationals of Muslim-majority countries; and nationals of Iran, alone, constitute over 60% of the total people affected. That is exactly why Iranian Americans must be on the front lines of this battle — and why we, as a community, we must inform ourselves, organize, and act.
Here are a few simple things can do to help now:
1. If you know anyone affected by Travel Ban 3.0, please notify us immediately by clicking here and filling out this form, or emailing us at info@iaba.us;
2. Please sign our joint petition to the U.S. Congress, requesting that it “Rescind the Muslim Ban Immediately.” This petition has been prepared by a coalition of highly respected legal and advocacy groups, including Iranian American organizations. We need your help to spread word of this petition, and to gather as many signatures as possible, to show broad support for abolishing any travel ban based on national origin or religion;
3. Share this statement, as well as the above form and petition, with your friends, families, and professional networks; and
4. Donate to IABA so it can continue its efforts in protecting our rights (click here).
We will continue to update you as things change, and will also keep you informed of our ongoing efforts. Please stay tuned. And, more importantly, remain engaged.
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
Sep 25, 2017
Dear members and friends,
Tonight, President Trump issued a new proclamation implementing his Travel Ban 3.0. The new Travel Ban identifies seven countries who are subject to sweeping new travel restrictions, without any apparent time limitations: Iran, Chad, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.
As related to Iran, the new Travel Ban 3.0 suspends both immigrant and non-immigrant visas of all Iranian nationals, with minor exceptions for valid student and exchange visitor visas (though even such individuals will “be subject to enhanced screening and vetting requirements”). All immigrant and most non-immigrant visas to nationals of Chad, Libya, Somalia, Venezuela, and Yemen are also suspended; as are all immigrant and non-immigrant visas to nationals of Syria and North Korea, without exception. Iraq and Sudan have been removed from the list.
The new ban goes into effect, either immediately or on October 18, 2017, under a two tier system: (1) for foreign nationals who lack a “bona fide relationship” to a U.S. person or entity (e.g., family, businesses, or schools) as determined by recent case law, the new ban goes into effect today, September 24, 2017; and (2) for foreign nationals of Iran (and Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia), who have a credible claim of a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. person or entity, the ban goes into effect on October 18, 2017. That means that even Iranian nationals with a bona fide relationship to a family member or work relationship in the U.S. will be unable to come to the U.S. beginning October 18 (those with student visas appear to still be permitted).
In short, the new Travel Ban 3.0 — if left intact — will impose a near total and indefinite ban on immigrant and non-immigrant visas for Iranian nationals.
That said, there are a few limitations expressed in the new ban, which bear mention:
First, the new Travel Ban 3.0 will not apply to Iranian nationals who: (1) are inside the U.S. when it goes into effect, (2) have a valid visa on the relevant effective date; and (3) had a valid visa, which was suspended or cancelled under the Travel Ban 1.0, dated January 27, 2017.
Second, the new Travel Ban 3.0 does not apply to lawful permanent residents of the U.S. (green card holders), or dual nationals who are traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country. It also does not apply to any foreign national: (1) who has a visa and other required document (such as a transportation letter, boarding foil, etc.) that is valid when the new ban goes into effect; or (2) who is already admitted as a refugee into, or has already been granted asylum by, the U.S. Nor will the new Travel Ban prohibit individuals from entering the U.S. on the basis of a credible claim of fear of persecution or torture.
Third, the new Travel Ban 3.0 purports to provide for “case-by-case” waivers, where: (1) denial of entry would cause undue hardship; (2) entry would not pose a threat to the national security of the U.S.; and (3) entry would be in the national interest. While the new Travel Ban 3.0 provides some examples of when this might happen — such as those previously admitted to the U.S. for work or study, or those who have built “significant contacts,” who are outside the U.S. when the new ban goes into effect; or those visiting immediate family in instances of “undue hardship” — it is unclear how these will apply.
Based on the above, it is clear that the Travel Ban 3.0, in effect, promises a near “total and complete ban” of Iranian nationals into the U.S. As always, IABA remains dedicated to protecting the rights of our community, and our families and friends. To that end, we will immediately: (1) explore and pursue potential legal challenges with coalition partners and counsel regarding this new ban; and (2) reach out to lawmakers and their staff to explore legislative options.
But, once again, we will need you to mobilize and help protect our community. As Iranian American attorneys, we remain the gatekeepers of our community’s rights, and the front lines of defense against any legal affront to those rights. And, again, we have been called on to rise to the challenge. In the past year, we have met that challenge head on every time needed, and we are needed to respond again. Here is what you can do to help:
1. First and foremost, if you know anyone affected by this Travel Ban 3.0, please notify us immediately by clicking here and filling out this form, or emailing us at info@iaba.us.
2. Engage community members who need help and direct them to IABA, and its online form;
3. Join or renew your membership with IABA (click here to join, and here to renew);
4. Donate to IABA so it can continue its efforts in protecting our rights (click here);
5. Answer calls for volunteering, meetings, translating, legal help, advocacy, etc.; and
6. Share this statement with your friends, families, and professional networks.
The situation will change rapidly. Please stay tuned and remain engaged.
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
June 29, 2017
Dear Members and Friends,
We recently provided you an update about the U.S. Supreme Court permitting parts of the “Travel Ban” Executive Order to proceed. You can find that summary here. In short, the Court found that the Travel Ban may not be used to prohibit visa applicants and refugees with “a bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity” (i.e. a “close” familial or business tie to the U.S.), but may otherwise prohibit nationals of Iran (and 5 other countries) without such ties to the U.S.
Yesterday, the Associated Press and Reuters both reported on new guidelines that have been sent to U.S. embassies and consulates, defining what a “close” familial relationship is. According to the reported guidelines, “close” family:
- Includes: parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or sibling in the U.S.
- Does not include: grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-or-sisters-in-law, fiancées or other extended family members.
This interpretation of “close” family is quite narrow, and even appears to disregard broader examples offered by the Supreme Court, itself. It is unclear what rationale there is to separate grandparents and grandchildren, or fiancées, in the name of national security. This narrow interpretation has already drawn condemnation for separating families, including from the largest Iranian American organizations, such as IABA, NIAC, PAAIA, and Pars Equality (see here).
The Travel Ban goes into effect today, June 29, 2017. There have been conflicting reports as to exactly what time, ranging from 10:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. (likely depending on the airport).
IABA has created a form to help track information about individuals affected by the Travel Ban, and to offer assistance as possible. The form is currently available. It can be filled out anonymously to provide us with information; or contact information can be provided if an individual needs help. The form is available here.
Please help us by sharing this information (and the IABA form) with your friends, family, and professional networks, as widely as possible. The more we know, the more we can help.
And, as always you can also help by:
- Joining or renewing your membership with IABA (click here to join, and here to renew);
- Donating to IABA so it can continue its efforts (click here);
- Answering calls to volunteer for translating, legal help, attendance at airports, etc. You can reach us at iaba@iaba.us; and
- Engaging community members who need help and directing them to IABA as needed.
Stay vigilant. Stay engaged. And stay tuned. Things can change quickly.
Babak Yousefzadeh
Iranian American Bar Association
National President
Joint Statement of Iranian-American organizations on court order on motion
for Preliminary Injunction
Iranian American Organizations Denounce State Department Travel Ban Guidelines
Joint Statement of the Pars Equality Center, the Iranian American Bar Association (IABA) National Iranian American Council (NIAC), and the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA)
WASHINGTON, DC – As organizations representing the Iranian American community, we denounce the new guidelines for the revised Travel Ban issued by the State Department on Wednesday night.
Following the Supreme Court’s June 26th, decision to move the Travel Ban forward while exempting those who can “credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the State Department’s guidelines ban extended family including grandparents, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces and fiancées from entering the country.
Extended family is the lifeblood of all immigrant groups. This restrictive notion of family will deter people who continue to contribute to the United States and make America their home.
Iranian Americans, a community that President Trump himself has called one of the most “successful immigrant groups in our country’s contemporary history,” has been significantly and adversely impacted by the Travel Ban. Out of the six Muslim-majority countries affected by the ban, Iran alone reportedly accounts for more than half of legal entrants to the United States, many of whom visit to see their families and loved ones.
Banning grandparents from visiting their grandchildren does not make America safer. Neither does it make sense to separate fiancées who seek to be reunited to begin their lives together. The Travel Ban has already disrupted family visitation and emergency medical care for loved ones, putting lives at stake. Treating our American communities as second-class citizens is un-American at its core and does absolutely nothing to protect the United States.
The Iranian American community stands up for civil rights and liberties, and we will remain vigilant in responding to measures that unfairly target our community. All four organizations along with individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Federal court in Washington, D.C. to stop the travel ban and its negative impacts on the immigrant population in the United States – “Pars Equality v. Donald J. Trump et al.” For more information, go to endthetravelban.com.
IABA Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling On The Travel Ban
June 26, 2017
Dear members and friends,
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the Trump Administration’s “Travel Ban” Executive Order. In so doing, the Supreme Court: (1) accepted review of the prior Fourth and Ninth Circuit opinions, which broadly stayed the Travel Ban; and (2) agreed to continue staying part of the Travel Ban, while allowing other parts of it to proceed forward, pending a decision on the merits in Fall 2017.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the Travel Ban: (1) cannot be enforced against any foreign nationals who can credibly show a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” but (2) can be enforced against other foreign nationals from the six listed countries (i.e. those with no ties to the U.S.).
More specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Travel Ban cannot prohibit foreign nationals of Iran (or five other countries) if they can credibly show:
• A close familial relationship to a person in the U.S. (examples from the Court went beyond the “family nucleus” to in-laws and other possible extended family); or
• A formal and documented relationship with a U.S. entity, formed in the ordinary course (e.g., students admitted to university, workers with employment at a U.S. company, a lecturer invited to address a U.S. audience, etc.).
Notably, the Supreme Court applied the same standard to refugees who are foreign nationals of the six identified countries: i.e. they may not enter the U.S. unless they can show a “bona fide” relationship with a U.S. person or entity. If they can make this showing, the Travel Ban cannot prohibit their entry, even if it exceeds the new 50,000 “cap” that the Travel Ban imposes.
The Supreme Court warned that a “bon fide” relationship may not be manufactured for purposes of evading the Travel Ban – e.g., a non-profit creating a work or other relationship for the sole purpose of bringing an otherwise prohibited foreign national to the U.S.
The Court’s order will go into effect on Thursday, June 29, 2017, and will remain in place until at least until October 2017, pending final resolution of this case on its merits.
While this decision was not entirely unexpected, it is extremely disappointing, in that it permits the Trump Administration to implement parts of a self-recognized Travel Ban, despite repeated statements expressing discriminatory intent based on nationality and religion. The Supreme Court decision also leaves ambiguity about its implementation. For example, it is unclear exactly what a “bona fide relationship” means (e.g., whether the quality or type of the relationship matters, which members of an extended family qualify, etc.). Such ambiguity is dangerous, and can permit arbitrary application. It also remains unclear whether and to what extent the Trump Administration will seek to apply “back door” immigration policies to implement its stated ban.
IABA expects that this ruling will lead to additional confusion and travel-related complications among our community members. So it is critical that our members know their rights, and have access to organizations capable of helping them. To that end, the IABA, through its website, will continue to: (1) disseminate information about member rights, (2) collect information and data from community members (and other individuals) who are affected by the Travel Ban; and (3) connect our members affected by this ban to attorneys capable of helping. All of this information will be available on: https://iaba.us/iaba-immigration-updates. If you know of anyone affected by the Travel Ban, please have them reach out to us, or visit our website.
As we have repeatedly said in prior communications, the issues surrounding the Travel Ban are not going away. However, we have – again and again – been able to secure victories though through the courts. As attorneys, it continues to fall on us to protect the community from the effects of this discriminatory ban, and other hostile legal policies. Please help us with those efforts by:
1. Joining or renewing your membership with IABA (click here to join, and here to renew);
2. Donating to IABA so it can continue its efforts (click here);
3. Answering calls and volunteering for translating, legal help, attendance at airports, etc.
4. Engaging the community members who need help and directing them to IABA as appropriate;
5. Answering calls to volunteer time for translating, legal help, at airports, etc.
6. Sharing this statement and related information with your friends, families, and professional networks.
7. Calling and writing your local, state, and federal representatives;
Babak Yousefzadeh
Iranian American Bar Association
National President
Joint Statement of Iranian-American organizations on court order on motion
for Preliminary Injunction
Contact: Christy Setzer, christy@newheightscommunications.com or
Aurora Matthews, aurora@newheightscommunications.com, 301-221-7984
May 11, 2017
JUDGE STAYS CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, ORDERS CASE TO MOVE FORWARD IN IRANIAN-AMERICAN ORGS CASE AGAINST TRUMP TRAVEL BAN
U.S. Federal Court Hears Iranian-Americans’ Stories, is Troubled by Government’s Actions
Washington, DC—Today, federal judge Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued an order expressing her belief that the preliminary injunction motion filed by four prominent Iranian-American organizations – Pars Equality Center, Iranian American Bar Association, National Iranian American Council, and Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans – and more than 15 individual plaintiffs, is “likely to succeed on the merits” – meaning the Trump administration’s travel ban Executive Order is likely unlawful. But the Court stayed consideration of, or ruling on, the parties’ preliminary injunction motion pending resolution of the two national injunctions on the Executive Order currently in place, and appeals of the same. Judge Chutkan assured that, “in the event that both existing injunctions are overturned, this court is prepared to issue a ruling without delay.” She further ordered the parties to continue ahead “to avoid undue delay in this litigation.”
“We are pleased that Judge Chutkan wrote that she believes that the travel ban is likely unlawful,” said Cyrus Mehri. “Judge Chutkan is seriously troubled by the government’s actions and is ready to step in if any existing injunction is rolled back. Judge Chutkan did not agree with the government’s arguments that there was no merit to our claims and that she has ordered the litigation to move forward. However, we would have preferred for the Court to rule on other key issues in the case, such as the ongoing irreparable harm that the organizations and individual plaintiffs continue to suffer. We will continue to vigorously prosecute this case.”
Hearings for the lawsuit were held on April 18 and April 21 in Washington, D.C. The first hearing featured live testimony from two of the organizations, which was the only time in any of the travel ban cases where the court heard directly from those harmed.
The Iranian-American community has been and continues to be significantly and adversely impacted by the travel ban. State Department data released last week shows that in March 2017, the Government issued 40 percent fewer visas to citizens of the listed countries than it did in any average month in 2016. The number of visas issued to Iranians dropped precipitously—from 2,450 per month in 2016 to 1,572 in March 2017—notwithstanding the nationwide injunctions against both the January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders.
Declarations filed by the individuals and organizations showed how the travel ban is continuing to cause harm to the Iranian-American community, including:
Consular processes have not been restored to the status quo before the travel bans: The declarations show that visa appointments that were cancelled have not been restored; that individuals whose visas were cancelled have been forced to re-start the applications process; and that the visa applications of individuals who had previously traveled to the United States have been summarily denied without explanation. Individuals are also confused about the rules that currently apply to visa and refugee processing and, based on the Government’s conduct and inconsistent statements, fear more sudden changes in the future.
Wreaking havoc on Iranian American families: The declarations include accounts of wedding plans being disrupted, of families being forced to disconnect from each other, and medical conditions worsened by the travel ban.
Disrupting the Academic, Research and Student Communities:The declarations highlight disruption to college, graduate and law students of Iranian descent – which not only stymie their own education but erode their academic, research and other contributions to U.S. universities.
Harm to Refugees: The declarations show examples of harm to refugee applicants whose applications are not being processed despite the nationwide injunction in place, and who continue to fear for their physical safety.
Harm to U.S. Democracy: The capricious nature of the travel ban and its destructive impact on the Iranian-American community undercuts democracy at home and abroad and makes America less safe.
Pars Equality is prosecuted by Iranian-American civil rights lawyer Cyrus Mehri with his Washington, DC-based firm Mehri & Skalet, PLLC; the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; and pro bono counsel, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer.
To learn more about the lawsuit, visit endthetavelban.com.
IABA STATEMENT ON EXECUTIVE ORDER RE BAN ON NATIONALS OF 6 MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES
March 17, 2017
Dear members and friends,
As most of you know, on March 6, 2017, President Trump issued his “Travel Ban” Version 2.0. This ban was set to go into effect yesterday, March 16, and required a 90 day halt on all travel from nationals from six Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Libya (but no longer Iraq) – subject to certain exceptions. Under this new Executive Order (EO), the refugee program will also be halted for 120 days in its entirety (subject to some exceptions), and upon resumption the number or refugee admissions to be cut drastically (to 50,000 down from 110,000).
In an effort to fix the many flaws of the original version, the Travel Ban 2.0 created exceptions (for whom the 90 day ban will not apply), including: (1) green card holders (lawful permanent residents); (2) individuals whose visas, refugee, or asylum status was granted before January 27 (the original EO), or as of March 6 (Version 2.0); and (3) dual nationals who are using a passport from a non-designated country. The Travel Ban 2.0 also permits case-by-case “waivers” for educational, health, and family purposes, if applicants can show “undue hardship” and that the waiver is “in the national interest.” Even more limited “waivers” were made available for the refugee program, though none expressly for “minority faith” members. No guidance is provided as to whether and under what circumstances any of these waivers would be granted.
President Trump, himself, described the Travel Ban 2.0 as a “watered down” version of the original, bolstering the position that this new EO provides only cosmetic changes to the illegality that permeated its predecessor. So it is not surprising that it was immediately challenged on the same grounds as the original EO, including that it violated the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Establishment Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
In response to such challenges, between March 15 and 16, District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland have already heard and granted temporary restraining orders against the new Travel Ban. The Hawaii District Court has issued a nation-wide stay of both the “national origin” and “refugee” provisions, while the Maryland District Court issued a nation-wide stay of the “national origin” provision. This means that the Travel Ban 2.0 did not go into effect yesterday as stated, pending resolution of the existing legal challenges.
While this is welcome news, our fight is far from over. Setting aside any appeals processes, these cases still have to be won on their merits. For its part, IABA – along with three other prominent Iranian American organizations – has renewed its legal challenge to the Travel Ban 2.0. Yesterday, we amended our original complaint to challenge the new Travel Ban, filed in the District Court in Washington D.C., and moved for a preliminary injunction – a motion supported by 25 declarations. Of all the lawsuits currently pending, our legal challenge provides the most comprehensive set of facts as to the effects of the Travel Ban on the Iranian American community. Our preliminary injunction motion is currently set to be heard on April 13. You can follow the progress of our lawsuit, including the most recent filings, here.
By its terms, this new EO can become a permanent ban against Iranian nationals. Its stated purpose is to provide a “90-day pause” to assess security surrounding travel from these six countries; but it also states that, if any foreign government on the list is unable or unwilling to comply with any required standards, this 90-day ban could be extended for an indefinite period of time. Given the lack of any diplomatic relations between Iran and the U.S., it is unlikely that the required cooperation would develop anytime soon between the two countries – and thus it is very possible that this ban would become permanent. We at the IABA intend to stand strong against this new EO, as with any other unlawful action that seeks to deprive our community of its rights. And to that end, we encourage and urge you for your help. Here is how you can help:
- Join or renew your membership with IABA (click here to join, and here to renew).
- Donate to IABA so it can continue its efforts (click here).
- Donate your time, whether through legal services, research, translating, physical presence, or simply helping coordinate the efforts of attorneys through your network.
- Offer your expertise in the law, including immigration and constitutional law.
- Continue to call and write your local and federal representatives
- Continue to share this information with your friends, families, and professional networks.
Babak Yousefzadeh
IABA National President
National Board of Directors
Iranian American Joint Satement
Contact: Christy Setzer, christy@newheightscommunications.com or
Aurora Matthews, aurora@newheightscommunications.com, 301-221-7984
February 9, 2017
IRANIAN-AMERICAN ORGS FILE FEDERAL LAWSUIT
AGAINST TRUMP TRAVEL BAN EXECUTIVE ORDER
Joint Statement of the Pars Equality Center, the Iranian American Bar
Association, the National Iranian American Council, and
the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans
Washington, DC—Several prominent Iranian-American organizations have filed a joint action in federal court to stop the Trump Administration’s Executive Order banning nationals from Iran and six other predominantly Muslim nations from entering the U.S. The lawsuit was filed by Iranian American civil rights lawyer Cyrus Mehri, partner of Washington, DC-based firm Mehri & Skalet, PLLC; the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; and pro bono counsel, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer (“APKS”), on behalf of the Pars Equality Center, the Iranian American Bar Association, the National Iranian American Council, and the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans.
The Iranian-American community has been significantly and adversely impacted by the travel ban. Iran had the largest total number of legal entrants into the U.S. (310,182) between 2006 and 2015; two-thirds of those entrants arrived in the United States on temporary visas. Of the 90,000 visas issued each year to the seven countries singled out by the EO, almost half (42,542) are from Iran.
The Iranian-American organizations released the following joint statement:
“In a united effort, and in honor of our parents, children and the entire Iranian-American community, we have filed a joint action in federal court to stop the White House’s Executive Order, a wholly irrational directive that profoundly discriminates against our community.
“The Executive Order illogically categorizes everyone of Iranian descent as a potential terrorist. According to the Cato Institute, there was not a single case of an American being killed in a terrorist attack in this country by a person born in Iran — or any of the other six countries specified in the Executive Order. Iranians were not among the perpetrators of 9/11 or the Oklahoma City bombings or the nightclub killings in Orlando, Florida, or any of the other horrific acts of terror that have taken place in the United States. To the contrary, Iranian Americans were counted among the victims in San Bernardino, as well as among the first responders on the scene.
“Today, with this joint action, we show our strong opposition to the blanket ban on Iranian nationals to the U.S., which will not make us safer, and would not have prevented acts of terrorism.
“Under our nation’s laws there can be no discrimination based on national origin. The United States Constitution requires even the President to provide Due Process and Equal Protection under the law, and to follow the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. We filed the suit today in federal court to uphold the best of American principles that motivated our families to make enormous sacrifices to join a nation that stands for freedom and equal opportunity free from discrimination.
“We deeply thank the attorneys at Mehri & Skalet, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and APKS for tirelessly working around the clock to develop and file this action.”
To learn more about the lawsuit or to sign up to receive email updates about the case, visit www.EndtheTravelBan.com.
For more information about the organizations, visit Pars Equality Center, the Iranian American Bar Association, the National Iranian American Council, and the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans.
Executive Order Press Call Advisory
MEDIA ADVISORY
Contact: Aurora Matthews, 301-221-7984 or
Christy Setzer, christy@newheightscommunications.com
IRANIAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS WHO FILED FEDERAL
LAWSUIT OVER TRUMP TRAVEL BAN HOLD PRESS CALL
Lawyers, Representatives Hold Press Call on Thursday, Feb 9 at 11 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representatives from prominent Iranian-American organizations and their counsel will hold a press call on Thursday, February 9 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss their joint action filed in federal court to stop the Trump Administration’s Executive Order banning nationals from Iran and six other predominantly Muslim nations from entering the U.S.
The lawsuit was filed by Iranian-American civil rights lawyer Cyrus Mehri, partner of Washington, DC-based firm Mehri & Skalet, PLLC; the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; and pro bono counsel, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer on behalf of the Pars Equality Center, the Iranian American Bar Association, the National Iranian American Council, and the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans.
Speakers on the press call will include:
- Moderator: Cyrus Mehri, Partner, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
- Kristen Clarke, President and Executive Director, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
- Nazy Fahimi, Senior Legal Director, Pars Equality Center (Pars)
- Leila Mansouri, President, Iranian American Bar Association- DC (IABA)
- Shayan Modarres, Counsel, National Iranian American Council (NIAC)
- Leila Golestaneh Austin, Executive Director of the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA)
- John Freedman, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
Approximately one million people of Iranian descent live in the United States. The joint action calls President Trump’s Executive Order unlawful and says it discriminates against the Iranian-American community by unfairly and improperly categorizing them as terrorists. According to the Cato Institute, there was not a single case of an American being killed in a terrorist attack in this country by a person born in Iran — or any of the other six countries specified in the Executive Order.
To join the call, please RSVP to aurora@newheightscommunications.com.
Legal Documents
- Plaintiff’s Complaint Challenging the Waiver Process in the Travel Ban
- Exhibits to Plaintiff’s Complaint Challenging the Waiver Process in the Travel Ban
- Brief of Amici Curiae to the U.S. Supreme Court on Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (Trump v. State of Hawaii, Et. Al.)
- Court Order in the matter of Pars Equality Center v, Trump, et al.
- Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Briefing schedule
- Plaintiff’s Status Report and Request for a Case Management Schedule
- Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum (Travel Ban 3.0)
- Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission in Support of Proposed Preliminary Injunction (Travel Ban 3.0)
- Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Travel Ban 3.0)
- Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Travel Ban 3.0)
- Proposed Order in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Travel Ban 3.0)
- Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Travel Ban 3.0)
- Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission and Proposed Modification of the Scope of the Proposed Preliminary Injunction (Travel Ban 3.0 and 10/24/17 Refugee Ban)
- Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission and Proposed Modification of the Scope of the Proposed Preliminary Injunction (Travel Ban 3.0 and Oct. 24 Refugee Ban)
- Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission and Proposed Modification of the Scope of the Proposed Preliminary Injunction (Travel Ban 3.0 and Oct. 24 Refugee Ban)
- Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission and Proposed Modification of the Scope of the Proposed Preliminary Injunction (Travel Ban 3.0 and Oct. 24 Refugee Ban)
- Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs’ (Modified) Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Travel Ban 3.0 and 10/24/17 Refugee Ban)
- Defendants’ Response Plaintiff’s Supplemental Submission and Proposed Modification of the Scope of the Proposed Preliminary Injunction (Travel Ban 3.0 and 10/24/17 Refugee Ban)
- Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ October 26 Submission (Travel Ban 3.0 and 10/24/17 Refugee Ban)
- Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Submission (Travel Ban 3.0 and 10/24/17 Refugee Ban)
- Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Other Legal Documents
- Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay and Related Relief
- Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
- Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission in Support of Motion to Life the Stay and for a Preliminary Injunction.
- Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Life the Stay and for Temporary restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
- Exhibits to Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of motion to Lift Stay and for Temporary restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
- Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of motion to Lift Stay and for Temporary restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
- Plaintiff’s Motion to Life the Stay and for Temporary restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
- Court Order staying proceedings pending the outcome of the Government’s appeal to the United States Supreme Court of the Fourth and Ninth Circuit challenges to the executive order.
- Supporting Brief – Human Rights First
- Supporting Brief – Professor Victor Williams, of the America First Lawyers Association
- Supporting Brief – HIAS
- Supporting Brief – National and Regional Civil Rights Organizations
- Plaintiffs’ Joint Supplemental Brief In Support Of Motions For Preliminary Injunction
- Defendants’ Response To Plaintiffs’ Joint Supplemental Brief Regarding Preliminary Relief
- Declaration of Director of the Office of Information Management and Liaison in the Office of Visa Services.
- List of Other Cases Seeking Preliminary Relief Against Executive Order No. 13,780
- Plaintiffs’ Joint Supplemental Reply Brief In Support Of Motions For Preliminary Injunction
- Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motions For Preliminary Injunction
- Temporarily Staying Resolution of 35 Plaintiffs
- Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Supreme Court Review
- Plantiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Emerency Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Supreme Court Review
IABA Lawsuit in the Press
- Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motions For Preliminary Injunction
- Plaintiffs’ Joint Supplemental Reply Brief In Support Of Motions For Preliminary Injunction
- Defendants’ Response To Plaintiffs’ Joint Supplemental Brief Regarding Preliminary Relief
- Declaration of Director of the Office of Information Management and Liaison in the Office of Visa Services.
- List of Other Cases Seeking Preliminary Relief Against Executive Order No. 13,780
- Plaintiffs’ Joint Supplemental Brief In Support Of Motions For Preliminary Injunction
Supreme Court order granting writ of certiorari (January 19, 2018).
PLEASE SEE BELOW FOR SUMMARIES OF CASES RELATED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER TITLED “PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.”
Part Equality Center v. Trump, 1:17-cv-00255 (D.D.C.)
· On February 9, 2017, several prominent Iranian-American organizations, Including IABA, have filed a joint action in federal court to stop the Trump Administration’s Executive Order banning nationals from Iran and six other predominantly Muslim nations from entering the U.S. in the District Court for the District of Columbia.
· The plaintiffs request that Sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c) and 5(e) of the Executive Order be declared contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and enjoin the Defendants from enforcing and applying such sections of the Executive Order.
Read the full complaint here. Read the joint statement of Iranian Organizations here.
Mohammed v. Trump, 2:17-cv-00786-AB-PLA (C.D. Cal.)
· Class action filed by Yemeni-born US citizens and legal immigrants, some of whom had been issued immigrant visas but prevented from entering the US pursuant to the Executive Order
· On January 31, the Court issued a TRO (i) enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Executive Order by removing, detaining, or blocking entry of any person from the seven banned countries who holds a valid immigrant visa; (ii) ordering Defendants to return any confiscated visas and immediately inform all relevant airport officials that individuals with previously confiscated visas are permitted to travel to the US; and (iii) barring Defendants from canceling any validly obtained immigrant visas
· TRO has nationwide effect
Farmad v. Trump, 2:17-cv-00706 (C.D. Cal.)
· Filed on behalf of two lawful permanent residents who were detained at LAX
· Plaintiffs were eventually released, mooting their petition for habeas corpus, but plaintiffs filed an amended petition and civil complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Executive Order
· No Court orders yet issued
Sarsour v. Trump, 1:17-cv-00120 (E.D. Va.)
· Class action filed by Muslim Americans residing in the US
· Complaint argues that one of the purposes of the Executive Order is to “initiate the mass expulsion of immigrant and nonimmigrant Muslims lawfully residing in the United States by denying them their ability to renew their lawful status or receive immigration benefits afforded to them under the Immigration and Nationality Act”
· Plaintiffs claim that the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act
· No Court orders yet issued
Ali v. Trump, 2:17-cv-00135 (W.D. Wash.)
· Class action filed by US citizens whose minor children are citizens of one of the banned countries and are currently awaiting decisions on immigrant visa applications so that they can be reunited with their parents in the US
· Proposed class would include all nationals of countries banned by the Executive Order who have applied or will apply for immigrant visas or whose immigrant visas have been or will be revoked
· Plaintiffs claim that the Executive Order violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and due process
· No Court orders yet issued
State of Washington v. Trump, 2:17-cv-00141 (W.D. Wash.)
· Filed by the Washington State Attorney General on the basis of the State’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its residents
· Several declarations filed from officials at Washington State University, Amazon.com, Expedia, and University of Washington setting forth harm to those entities and to their students and employees that will result from the Executive Order
· State requests nationwide TRO enjoining Defendants from barring entry into the US of immigrants and non-immigrants pursuant to the Executive Order
· No Court orders yet issued
Arab American Civil Rights League v. Trump, 2:17-cv-10310 (E.D. Mich.)
· Plaintiffs are Muslim lawful permanent residents from countries banned by Executive Order who have either been unable to return to the US from abroad or fear that they will be unable to return to the US if they travel abroad
· Plaintiffs claim that the Executive Order violates the Equal Protection Clause and Establishment Clause by giving preference to Christian refugees over Muslim noncitizens
· Plaintiffs request a stay of the Executive Order enjoining Defendants from detaining or removing individuals pursuant to the Executive Order
Asali v. DHS
· Plaintiffs are Syrian citizens who were granted lawful permanent resident visas, but denied entry to the US pursuant to the Executive Order
· Plaintiffs claim that Executive Order violates Equal Protection Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act
· Plaintiffs request a TRO enjoining Defendants from barring Plaintiffs’ return to the US and requiring Defendants to reinstate Plaintiffs’ visas and admit them to the US under the terms of those visas
· No Court orders yet issued
IABA is trying to help track and offer assistance to those affected by the Travel Ban. Please access the intake form here.
- IABA has partnered with other organization to provide legal and translating services to incoming travelers. Please sign up for pro bono service in California through the Immigration Pro Bono Response Network here.
- IABA is hosting events nationwide to educate and mobilize the community. Please join our upcoming event in partnership with other minority bar associations by visiting our page here.
- IABA is working with a number of partner organization, including the ACLU (please see Here), to legally challenge the executive order in a number of jurisdictions. IABA Law Suit
- IABA has partnered with other organizations to organize the community to contact members of congress regarding the impact of the Executive Order on the Iranian-American community. Please take action by reaching out to your member of congress here and here
Completing this form does not guarantee legal representation. It does not create an attorney/client relationship. It is not subject to the attorney/client privilege. The Iranian American bar association does not accept any responsibility for any assistance provided, legal or otherwise, as a result of completing this form. Individuals should speak with an attorney to make decisions based on individual circumstances.
Information provided may be shared with other organizations for the purpose of: (1) trying to help you find representation; and (2) tracking and using this information to help advance the legal rights of the community and others in similar circumstances.
IABA CHAPTERS:
Dallas – dallas@iaba.us
Los Angeles – Natalie Rastagari, President, IABA – Los Angeles – losangeles@iaba.us
New York – nyc@iaba.us
Northern California – northerncalifornia@iaba.us
Orange County – Nesa Targhibi, President, IABA – Orange County – ocimmigration2017@gmail.com –
cell 714-797-7377 – oc@iaba.us
Phoenix – Afsanieh Rassti – National Representative – Phoenix – Afsanieh.rassti@asu.edu
San Diego – Arezoo Jamshidi – Arezoo.Jamshidi@lewisbrisbois.com – sandiego@iaba.us
Washington, D.C. – Leila Mansouri, President, IABA – Washington DC – Leila@iaba.us – dc@iaba.us
CNN International 1.27.17 — Link
ABC Australia 1.30.17 — Legal Issues Surround Travel Ban
PRI TheWorld 1.30.17 — Federal judges have temporarily blocked parts of Trump’s immigration restrictions, but agents are still detaining people
Twitter 1.31.17 — Link
Los Angeles IABA Director Mona Afrashteh appeared on Radio Hamrah
to discuss the recent Executive Order and its implications.
- Iranian-American Organizations Who Filed Federal Lawsuit Over Trump Travel Ban Hold Press Call 2.9.17
- Iranian-American Orgs File Federal Lawsuit Against Trump Travel Ban Executive Order 2.9.17
- Judge Stays Consideration Of Preliminary Injunction, Orders Case To Move Forward In Iranian-American Orgs Case Against Trump Travel Ban 5.11.17
Advisory for Students Returning to the U.S. from Countries on the Travel Ban List: Here
IABA, in collaboration with partners, issues Iranian-American Community Advisory: “Know Your Rights at the Airport and the Border” (English translation) (Persian translation) (Know Your Rights Pamphlet)
What does the travel ban mean for you: Here
Muslim Discrimination: for information from the ACLU please visit here
Immigrants Rights: for information from the ACLU please visit here
A detailed analysis of the Executive Order: Here
Executive Order Fact Sheet: Here
Executive Order Guidance (updated January 27, 2017): Here
State Department Announcement regarding Executive Order on Visas: Here
FAQs from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection: here
Please note that we update this page regularly and encourage you to check back often