The Trump administration must resume asylum processing and providing immigration benefits to immigrants regardless of national origin, a federal court ruled June 5.
A coalition of labor unions and immigrant service groups sued U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in March for denying access to citizenship and asylum applications, Green Cards and work permits to nationals from 39 nations included in President Donald Trump’s travel ban.
John J. McConnell Jr.
U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island ruled for the litigants after determining USCIS policymaking was racially motivated and victimized immigrants who entered the country legally and diligently followed all immigration rules to remain in the country.
“In ruling on these motions, the court is reminded of a line often repeated in discussions around immigration policy: If people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to ‘follow the law’ and ‘do things the right way.’ This case serves as a perfect example of immigrants doing just that.”
Unlike those who have entered the U.S. illegally, these immigrants filled out the paperwork, paid the required fees, attended the interviews and provided the biometric data required by law. In fact, it is the federal government that has “neither ‘followed the law’ nor ‘done things the right way,’” McConnell wrote.
It is the federal government that has “neither ‘followed the law’ nor ‘done things the right way,’” Mconnell wrote.
“Indeed, the agency has violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering, as well as the administrative laws that govern the agency’s actions.”
Nationals covered by the USCIS directives included numerous African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries, including Afghanistan, Burma, Cuba, Haiti, Nigeria, Syria and Venezuela.
The administration announced the policy changes after an Afghan national shot two National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., in November.
Plaintiffs in the case included the Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, Refugee Dream Center, Service Employees International Union, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, African Communities Together, the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, the Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans and American Gateways.
The coalition was represented by Democracy Forward, the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Muslim Advocates and the South Asian American Justice Collaborative.
The ruling in Dorcus International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS reaffirms the federal government cannot block lawful immigration pathways based on nation of origin, Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman said.
Abbey Koenning-Rutherford
“These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections or move forward with their lives,” Perryman said. “Our communities deserve a fair process governed by law, not political targeting rooted in fear mongering and discrimination.”
The decision is an outright rejection of the federal government’s racist immigration practices, added Abbey Koenning-Rutherford, staff attorney at Muslim Advocates.
“The Trump administration cannot hold the lives of immigrants in legal limbo based on their countries of birth.”
“In vacating these unlawful policies, the court makes it unmistakably clear that the Trump administration cannot hold the lives of immigrants in legal limbo based on their countries of birth and must continue processing their applications for status and benefits as required by law.”
For its part, the administration argued that the policies cannot be challenged because they are matters of national security.
However, “simply because the executive branch invokes the talisman of national security with respect to its policies does not render those policies unreviewable,” McConnell said. “To the contrary, courts routinely consider challenges to immigration policies — even where ‘national security concerns’ are raised — simply to ensure that the executive branch has not exceeded the scope of its constitutional or statutory authority in enacting such policies.”