WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is putting new criteria in place Thursday for visa applicants from six mostly Muslim nations and all refugees, requiring a close family or business tie to the United States. The move comes after the Supreme Court partially restored President Donald Trump’s executive order that was widely criticized as a ban on Muslims.
Visas that have already been approved will not be revoked. The should help avoid the kind of chaos at airports around the world that surrounded the initial travel ban, as travelers with previously approved visas were kept off flights or barred entry on arrival in the United States. Also, while the initial order took effect immediately, adding to the confusion, this one was delayed more than 72 hours after the court’s ruling.
The new instructions issued by the State Department will affect new visa applicants from Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen. They must prove a relationship with a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the United States to be eligible. The same requirement, with some exceptions, holds for would-be refugees from all nations that are still awaiting approval for admission to the U.S.
Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, fiancees or other extended family members are not considered to be close relations, according to the guidelines that were issued in a cable sent to all U.S. embassies and consulates late on Wednesday. The new rules take effect at 8 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Thursday (0000GMT on Friday), according to the cable, which was obtained by The Associated Press.
As far as business or professional links are concerned, the State Department said, a legitimate relationship must be “formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course rather than for the purpose of evading” the ban. Journalists, students, workers or lecturers who have valid invitations or employment contracts in the U.S. would be exempt from the ban. The exemption does not apply to those who seek a relationship with an American business or educational institution purely for the purpose of avoiding the rules. A hotel reservation or car rental contract, even if it was pre-paid, would also not count, it said.
Consular officers may grant other exemptions to applicants from the six nations if they have “previously established significant contacts with the United States;” ”significant business or professional obligations” in the U.S.; if they are an infant, adopted child or in need of urgent medical care; if they are traveling for business with a recognized international organization or the U.S. government or if they are a legal resident of Canada who applies for a visa in Canada, according to the cable.
There were no major problems reported in the hours after the guidelines were issued. The Middle East’s biggest airline says its flights to the United States are operating as normal. Dubai-based Emirates reminded passengers that they “must possess the appropriate travel documents, including a valid U.S. entry visa, in order to travel.”
On Monday, the Supreme Court partially lifted lower court injunctions against Trump’s executive order that had temporarily banned visas for citizens of the six countries. The justices’ ruling exempted applicants from the ban if they could prove a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. person or entity, but the court offered only broad guidelines — suggesting they would include a relative, job offer or invitation to lecture in the U.S. — as to how that should be defined.
Senior officials from the departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security had labored since then to design guidelines that would comply with the ruling. Wednesday’s instructions were the result. The new guidance will remain in place until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling on the matter. Arguments before the justices will not be held until at least October, so the interim rules will remain in place at least until the fall.
Shortly after taking office, Trump ordered the refugee ban and a travel ban affecting the six countries, plus Iraq. He said it was needed to protect the U.S. from terrorists, but opponents said it was unfairly harsh and was intended to meet his campaign promise to keep Muslims out of the United States.
After a federal judge struck down the bans, Trump signed a revised order intended to overcome legal hurdles. That was also struck down by lower courts, but the Supreme Court’s action partially reinstated it.
The new rules will also affect would-be immigrants from the six countries who win visas in the government’s diversity lottery — a program that randomly awards 50,000 green cards annually to people from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. They will also have to prove they have a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the U.S. or that they are eligible for another waiver. If they, can’t they face being banned for at least 90 days.
That may be a difficult hurdle, as many visa lottery winners don’t have relatives in the U.S. or jobs in advance of arriving in the country.
Generally, winners in the diversity lottery only need prove they were born in an eligible county and have completed high school or have at least two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at least two other years of training or experience.
So how is this any different than the current travel rules. I mean we don’t just let anyone into the US???
You have to have a visa and you have to apply for it. So, this is just the long established policy that the US has been using for the last 5 years…
Agreed. Even so, parties should go back to court and challenge the stated restrictions since Trump is going to look to maximize them (i.e., minimize exceptions to those specifically stated in the SCOTUS ruling), even though the principle and guidelines are clearly broader than just close familiar, student, employment or speaking engagement provided as examples in the SCOTUS ruling.
The ruling first sets forth the standard of a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a US person or entity”, Then the ruling also provides clear examples where that standard is met. The visa applicant has to provide suitable documentation to support their “credible claim” and, presumably, US authorities should be able to independently verify that claim using reliable US sources.
But the ruling also lays out the standard for the restriction, and that is where the “credible claim of a bona fide relationship” is designed to circumvent the standard, such as a US person or entity creating the relationship with the foreign nation specifically to circumvent that standard.
The media, in their typical fashion, gets very literal on everything to dumb it down for the audience, and Trump will seek to take advantage of that uncertainty to insert bogus reasoning of his own. But just as before, the courts can step in and interpret the SCOTUS ruling to protect the interest of US persons or entities with respect to the travel plans of these foreign nationals. To the extent the new Trump restrictions infringe on those rights (that is, the rights of US persons or entities to receive foreign visitors), the lower courts can make those calls. And those courts have already shown willingness to broadly restrict Trump.
Further, if Trump doesn’t like it, he can go back to SCOTUS for an emergency clarification, but I doubt he’ll get it over the summer SCOTUS recess. Why would SCOTUS give him more leeway on restrictions to keep a handful of tourists from Yemen (tourist with money, I assume) from visiting Disney World or former neighbors and friends who moved to the US? As long as the relationship is documented, bona fide, and not created simply to avoid the restrictions, the restriction should not apply. That’s how I’d expect the lower courts and SCOTUS to rule.
Since the whole purpose of the travel ban was, ostensibly, to give the proper agencies time to go over their procedures to improve security and the time that was needed (90 days) is FAR past, why are we doing this again? I mean other than the religious and racist dick-stroking?
Wat. Have we been flat rejecting any visa applicant who did not have a one-generation blood or marriage relative in the US, and only for those from a few specific countries? And rejecting green card lottery winners under the same restrictions - banning them for 90 days if they fail the bona-fide relationship tests? And refugees?
It surprises me that these rules are no different from the ones we’ve been using for the last 5 years, but you seem pretty confident and I haven’t done the research. I guess this whole thing was much ado about nothing then. No change at all for people coming from those countries.