daughter-in-law or sibling in the U . S . Other members of the family , such as grandparents , were initially excluded . The 2.0 version said they were not a “ bona fide ” relation to the foreign national . Following lawsuits , they were later included .
After a series of defeats , in June of 2017 the administration had a win at last . The U . S . Supreme Court , right before it took its summer recess , lifted the hold on the ban which had been in place by federal judges in both Hawaii and Maryland . The Supreme Court ’ s ruling was unsigned by liberal justices ( Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan ). Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch , Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito contended that the president ’ s administration should be permitted to enforce the ban in all instances . This effectively allowed the Trump administration to disallow citizens of Sudan , Syria , Yemen , Iran , Libya and Somalia from entering the U . S . for 90 days . It also barred nearly all refugees from coming into the U . S . for 120 days .
In an attempt to make the ban more of a permanent feature within the fabric of our immigration laws , on Sept . 24 , 2017 , the administration issued Presidential Proclamation 9645 ( no longer titled “ Executive Order ”). It placed restrictions on eight countries : Syria , Venezuela , Yemen , Chad , Iran , Libya , North Korea and Somalia . It also placed added security measures on Iraqi citizens . Both the Ninth Circuit ( Hawaii plaintiffs ) and Fourth Circuit ( Maryland plaintiffs ) issued injunctions against this so-called “ Travel Ban 3.0 ,” which again rendered Trump ’ s ban ineffective . However , on Dec . 7 , 2017 , this time the Supreme Court granted the administration ’ s motions for an emergency stay of preliminary injunctions .
As such , President Trump ’ s most recent travel ban went into effect on Dec . 8 , 2017 , for the predominantly Muslim countries while the appeals were still pending in both Ninth and Fourth circuit courts .
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 9645
The Presidential proclamation , while narrower in its scope , is still considered by many to be motivated by animus and is unconstitutional on many levels . On its face , the proclamation claims to allow for a “ waiver ” process for people who pose no threat to United States . According to the proclamation itself , the Department of State was to provide “ guidance ” to the public . To date , there has been no clear guidance by the department . The only “ guidance ” is a virtual reiteration of the proclamation itself ( See AILA Doc . No . 17120830 ).
Although the Trump proclamation claims a “ case-by-case ” waiver is available to the adversely affected nationals , there has been virtually a categorical denial of affected parties since its implementation on Dec . 8 , 2017 . Visa applicants are provided with a generic denial notice , stating that they have been found “ ineligible for a visa under Section 212 ( f ) of the Immigration and Nationality Act , pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9645 . Today ’ s decision cannot be appealed .”
Following this generic denial , one of two boxes is checked off . The first option states that “ taking into account the provisions of the proclamation , a waiver will not be granted ” and that the applicant may reapply later in time . Said box appears to
be checked for virtually all non-immigrant visas ( if said nonimmigrant visa is not one of the few “ exceptions ” under the proclamation ) and also for all diversity visa applicants . The second box is generally checked for majority of immigrant visa applicants , including family-based and EB-5 visa categories . Here , the intending immigrant is advised that the consular officer is reviewing the applicant for a waiver under the proclamation , and further reference is made to the proclamation text . Said rejection notice ends by emphasizing that the waiver process is a lengthy one , and that the applicant remains “ refused under Section 212 ( f ).”
Section 3 ( c ) of Proclamation 9645 grants authority to consular and immigration officials to grant waivers on a “ case-by-case basis ” to an individual who would otherwise be subject to the proclamation ’ s entry ban if : Denying entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship ; entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the U . S ., and entry would be in the national interest .
THE VISA WAIVER PROCESS
Although a waiver process is supposed to be possible , it is unclear as to what standards of proof are being used to make this determination . Through a bipartisan letter written on Jan . 31 , 2018 , Sens . Jeff Flake and Chris Van Hollen requested information about visas from the State Department . In their letter , the senators assert that there have been reports of “ uniform denial of waivers for visas .” Additionally , the senators emphasize that U . S . Department of State has not given the public any conclusive guidance on waivers and has not provided standards of proof or qualifications for granting waiver eligibility .
EB5INVESTORS . COM 40