A federal judge in Manhattan has struck down the Trump administration’s policy suspending immigrant visa issuance for citizens of 75 countries, ruling that the measure was ‘contrary to law’ and exceeded the statutory authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The State Department introduced the policy in January, pausing immigrant visa processing for people from nearly 40% of the world’s countries. The administration said the move was intended to prevent the admission of immigrants who could potentially 'take welfare and public benefits'.&nbsp;Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Federal District Court in Manhattan rejected that reasoning, ruling that visa denials based solely on the policy must be reversed. Her decision represents another legal setback for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. Under US immigration law, applicants can be denied entry as a potential ‘public charge’ only after a consular officer evaluates the individual’s circumstances. That assessment must consider factors including the applicant’s finances, age, health, skills and family situation.&nbsp;Vargas found that the State Department’s policy effectively instructed US consular officers to deny immigrant visas based solely on an applicant’s country of nationality, even when the applicant could demonstrate an ability to support themselves. A cable sent by Rubio to US diplomatic and consular posts, which was included in the court record, instructed officers to refuse applicants even when someone “provides additional evidence that demonstrates he or she overcomes the public charge refusal.”“The outcome is predetermined,” Vargas wrote. “The visa will be refused.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nigerian-navy-disrupts-crude-oil-theft-operation-recovers-93-000-litres-in-bonny-1787399410204">Nigerian Navy disrupts crude oil theft operation, recovers 93,000 litres in Bonny</a>&nbsp;The judge concluded that the policy conflicted with a 1965 law prohibiting nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. She also found that another federal provision prevents the secretary of state from controlling how consular officers make individual visa determinations. The ruling applies to denials based on the disputed policy. Visa refusals based on separate legal grounds remain valid, even if officers also referenced the 75-country policy. As a result, the precise number of visa denials that could be reversed remains uncertain.&nbsp;The suspension affected immigrant visas used by people seeking permanent residence in the United States, including those joining family members or moving to the country for employment. It did not apply to nonimmigrant visas, including tourist and student visas. The administration’s list covered countries across the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and Southeast Asia. It included several US partners, including Jordan, Egypt and Georgia.&nbsp;According to the administration, the State Department developed the list using data from the Council of Economic Advisers. Countries were targeted where more than 30% of immigrant households were reported to receive some form of public assistance. The plaintiffs included six US citizens who had filed family-based immigration petitions and argued that the policy prevented relatives in Ghana, Jamaica, Guatemala and Ethiopia from receiving immigrant visas. Five Colombian applicants seeking employment-based visas also joined the case. One of them received a visa denial notice that specifically cited the policy.&nbsp;The Trump administration did prevail on one narrower issue. Vargas agreed that the policy did not constitute a formal rule requiring the government to open the measure to public comment before putting it into effect. In defending the policy, government lawyers relied in part on a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the third version of Trump’s first-term travel ban. That policy restricted entry by nationals of several countries, most of which had majority-Muslim populations.&nbsp;Vargas, however, distinguished that precedent from the current case. She said the 2018 ruling concerned the president’s authority to determine who could enter the United States, while the current dispute involved the separate question of whether a visa could be issued in the first place. Vargas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, gave both sides until September 11 to submit proposals for resolving the remaining issues in the case. The Trump administration can appeal the ruling, potentially setting up another legal battle over the scope of executive authority in US immigration policy.

A federal judge strikes down Trump’s 75-country immigrant visa ban, ruling the policy was 'contrary to law' and exceeded Secretary of State Rubio’s authority

A federal judge in Manhattan has struck down the Trump administration’s policy suspending immigrant visa issuance for citizens of 75 countries, ruling that the measure was ‘contrary to law’ and exceeded the statutory authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The State Department introduced the policy in January, pausing immigrant visa processing for people from nearly 40% of the world’s countries. The administration said the move was intended to prevent the admission of immigrants who could potentially 'take welfare and public benefits'. Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Federal District Court in Manhattan rejected that reasoning, ruling that visa denials based solely on the policy must be reversed. Her decision represents another legal setback for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. Under US immigration law, applicants can be denied entry as a potential ‘public charge’ only after a consular officer evaluates the individual’s circumstances. That assessment must consider factors including the applicant’s finances, age, health, skills and family situation. Vargas found that the State Department’s policy effectively instructed US consular officers to deny immigrant visas based solely on an applicant’s country of nationality, even when the applicant could demonstrate an ability to support themselves. A cable sent by Rubio to US diplomatic and consular posts, which was included in the court record, instructed officers to refuse applicants even when someone “provides additional evidence that demonstrates he or she overcomes the public charge refusal.” “The outcome is predetermined,” Vargas wrote. “The visa will be refused.” Also Read: Nigerian Navy disrupts crude oil theft operation, recovers 93,000 litres in Bonny The judge concluded that the policy conflicted with a 1965 law prohibiting nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. She also found that another federal provision prevents the secretary of state from controlling how consular officers make individual visa determinations. The ruling applies to denials based on the disputed policy. Visa refusals based on separate legal grounds remain valid, even if officers also referenced the 75-country policy. As a result, the precise number of visa denials that could be reversed remains uncertain. The suspension affected immigrant visas used by people seeking permanent residence in the United States, including those joining family members or moving to the country for employment. It did not apply to nonimmigrant visas, including tourist and student visas. The administration’s list covered countries across the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and Southeast Asia. It included several US partners, including Jordan, Egypt and Georgia. According to the administration, the State Department developed the list using data from the Council of Economic Advisers. Countries were targeted where more than 30% of immigrant households were reported to receive some form of public assistance. The plaintiffs included six US citizens who had filed family-based immigration petitions and argued that the policy prevented relatives in Ghana, Jamaica, Guatemala and Ethiopia from receiving immigrant visas. Five Colombian applicants seeking employment-based visas also joined the case. One of them received a visa denial notice that specifically cited the policy. The Trump administration did prevail on one narrower issue. Vargas agreed that the policy did not constitute a formal rule requiring the government to open the measure to public comment before putting it into effect. In defending the policy, government lawyers relied in part on a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the third version of Trump’s first-term travel ban. That policy restricted entry by nationals of several countries, most of which had majority-Muslim populations. Vargas, however, distinguished that precedent from the current case. She said the 2018 ruling concerned the president’s authority to determine who could enter the United States, while the current dispute involved the separate question of whether a visa could be issued in the first place. Vargas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, gave both sides until September 11 to submit proposals for resolving the remaining issues in the case. The Trump administration can appeal the ruling, potentially setting up another legal battle over the scope of executive authority in US immigration policy.

Trump’s 75-country immigrant visa ban was struck down by a federal judge, who ruled it exceeded legal authority and unlawfully targeted nationalities

'Contrary to law': US Federal judge strikes down Trump administration’s 75-country visa ban

us-immigrants-visa

Us Immigrants Visa, News on Us Immigrants Visa, stories on Us Immigrants Visa, articles on Us Immigrants Visa, Us Immigrants Visa stories at Wion, Us Immigrants Visa news, Us Immigrants Visa latest news

us immigrants-visa

'Contrary to law': US Federal judge strikes down Trump administration’s 75-country visa ban