Judge Finds Trump‑Era Immigration Policy Unlawful, Restores Pathways for 39 Nations","description":"A federal judge invalidated a Trump‑administered policy that had barred immigrants from 39 countries from obtaining asylum, work permits, green cards and citizenship, citing violations of statutory authority and racial discrimination.","summary":"U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. struck down the policy, ending the indefinite legal limbo that left thousands of immigrants unsure about their lives. The ruling reaffirms that the federal government cannot arbitrarily shut down lawful immigration channels or discriminate based on national origin.","image":"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1580027779742-c9031b37dd02?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=MnwxMjA3MDV8MHwxfGFsbHx8fHx8fHx8&ixlib=rb-1.2.1&q=80&w=1110","text":"<p><strong>Boston (AP)</strong> — A federal judge on Friday struck down a Trump administration policy enacted after the shooting of two National Guard members, making it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to stay and enter the U.S.</p>\n\n<p>In a ruling harshly criticizing the administration, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. said the policy “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo,” and accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.</p>\n\n<p>“In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti‑immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision‑making,” the judge wrote. “In legal terms that means USCIS’s actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”</p>\n\n<p>The policies enacted after the National Guard shooting last year meant that immigrants from 39 African, Asian, Latin‑American, and Middle‑Eastern countries have been “categorically barred” from receiving final decisions on asylum, work permits, green cards, and citizenship applications.</p>\n\n<p>“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs. “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.”</p>\n\n<p>The policies apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which approves applications for immigrants to work and become citizens. The agency, which is within the Department of Homeland Security, often grants asylum only to those already in the United States when they apply. Immigration judges grant asylum to those stopped at the border; the ruling does not affect them, nor does it affect the policies that sparked the lawsuit.</p>\n\n<p>The court dismissed the government’s motion to uphold the policy, which the administration argued that Congress had given the executive branch broad authority over immigration policy. The government also claimed it had discretion to confer or withdraw discretionary benefits.</p>\n\n<p>“This case rests on a remarkable premise: that a federal court should prevent an agency from issuing the very policy guidance that provides government personnel with the guardrails necessary to ensure consistent, non‑arbitrary, and individualized decision‑making consistent with federal law,” the government wrote in its brief.</p>\n\n<p>Immigration groups celebrated the ruling. “This ruling sets a powerful precedent that the administration cannot ignore the law as laid down by Congress and cannot arbitrarily bar immigration benefits on the basis of national origin by fiat,” said Jamal Abdi, president at the National Iranian American Council. “Fortunately, this is still a nation of laws, and those who uphold America’s values have recourse to challenge and push back on such discriminatory, arbitrary policies.”</p>\n\n<p>Shawn VanDiver, a Navy veteran who heads a coalition that supports Afghan resettlement efforts called #AfghanEvac, said the ruling was a “significant victory for the rule of law and for thousands of Afghan allies and other immigrants who followed every requirement asked of them.” He added that delayed work‑permit renewals had threatened livelihoods, families had postponed education, travel, and homeownership, and future Americans had expected citizenship only to see their applications stall without explanation.</p>\n\n<p>“Just this week in Dallas and Fort Worth, we met people who feared losing jobs because delayed work permit renewals threatened their livelihoods, families who postponed education, travel, and homeownership because they did not know when their cases would be resolved, and future Americans who had expected to become citizens only to see their applications stall without explanation,” VanDiver said.</p>\n\n<p>The decision reflects ongoing efforts by the administration to tighten U.S. entry standards for travel and immigration, in what critics say unfairly prevents travel for people from a broad range of countries. The administration suggested it would expand the restrictions after the arrest of an Afghan national suspect in the shooting of two National Guard troops over Thanksgiving weekend.</p>\n\n<p>For now, the United States will see the restoration of lawful immigration pathways for the affected groups, and the case stands as a reminder that agencies must operate within the constraints of federal law and cannot arbitrarily deny benefits based on national origin.</p>
