This webpage was generated programmatically; to access the article in its initial setting, you can follow the link below:
https://www.niacouncil.org/news/frequently-asked-questions-faq-president-trumps-executive-order-setting-up-return-of-the-travel-ban/
and if you wish to eliminate this article from our website, please reach out to us
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order establishing the resurrection of the travel ban, which had earlier prohibited Iranian and other foreign nationals from obtaining visas based on their country of origin. This is accomplished by instructing the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to perform a comprehensive security assessment and possibly mandate “a partial or complete halt on the entrance of nationals” from countries identified as lacking in the transmission of vetting and screening data regarding visa seekers to the U.S.
See below for preliminary information concerning what this signifies and how it may affect you and your family.
What actions does this new executive order implement?
Fundamentally, the Executive Order instructs the administration to initiate the process of re-establishing a possible travel ban within the next 60 days.
The essence of the order mandates the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security, collaborating with the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, to produce a report by March 21, 2025. This document will identify “countries globally that lack sufficient vetting and screening data to justify a partial or total suspension on the acceptance of nationals from those nations under section 212(f) of the [Immigration and Nationality Act].”
Past versions of the ban limited most Iranians from acquiring visas for entry into the United States. In a previous report during Trump’s first term that reinforced visa restrictions for Iranian nationals, the administration evaluated: “The Iranian government routinely fails to cooperate with the U.S. Government in recognizing security threats; is a source of significant terrorist risks; sponsors terrorism; and does not accept its nationals who are subject to final orders of removal from the U.S.”
Although the new Executive Order by the Trump administration is ostensibly aimed at mitigating terrorism risks, there has been minimal association between nationality and terrorist threats, challenging the rationale of the bans.
Is the ban currently active?
No. There is not currently a visa issuance ban for Iran. However, a ban could theoretically be instituted at any point before March.
What new aspects does this Executive Order present?
Alarmingly, the order may result in the deportation of Iranians and other individuals who legally obtained a visa following the prior ban’s repeal in 2021.
It mandates the government to pursue a review of individuals from nations that will be affected by the new ban who received visas over the last four years, instructing the administration to begin deportation proceedings against at least some of them based on unspecified criteria.
This is achieved by stating that the report due within sixty days should outline “how many nationals from (banned) nations have entered or been admitted into the United States on or after January 20, 2021…Whenever information is identified that would support the exclusion or deportation of any alien described in subsection 2(b), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take immediate action to exclude or deport that alien unless she determines that doing so would obstruct a significant ongoing investigation or legal action against the alien for a serious criminal offense or would be contrary to the national security interests of the United States.”
This represents a new feature that was absent in earlier versions of the ban. If applied broadly, as is certainly a possibility, it could pose a significant threat to the rights of tens of thousands of individuals. Over 40,000 individuals from Iran alone appear to have been granted lawful visas during the past four years, excluding visitor visas.
Section 3 of the order similarly outlines various vague directives aimed at informing enforcement actions and promoting initiatives to counter perceived foreign threats. This includes a directive to shield the United States from “foreign nationals who have undermined or seek to undermine the essential constitutional rights of the American populace, including, but not limited to, our citizens’ rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion safeguarded by the First Amendment, who incite or advocate for sectarian violence, the overthrow or replacement of the culture that underpins our constitutional Republic, or who provide assistance, advocacy, or support for foreign terrorists.”
What is the likelihood that waivers or exemptions will be included in a new ban?
At this point, it remains unclear whether there will be any exemptions or waivers associated with a new ban.
The final iteration of the ban under the previous Trump administration included exemptions for Iranian students and permitted a waiver for Iranian nationals seeking a visa “only if a foreign national can convincingly demonstrate to the satisfaction of the consular officer or CBP official that:
(A) refusing entry would result in undue hardship for the foreign national;
(B) admission would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States; and
(C) admission would serve the national interest.”
Importantly, the waiver process was heavily criticized as being ineffective, as very few were processed. In 2019, data from the State Department itself indicated that waivers were utilized in only a limited number of circumstances. This was referenced by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissenting opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, where she stated “there is reason to suspect that
the Declaration’s waiver scheme is merely a facade.”
Consequently, while numerous Iranian individuals may have a strong case for obtaining a waiver, it is fairly reasonable to assume that the likelihood of obtaining a waiver could be minimal.
I require legal assistance. Who should I reach out to?
NIAC does not offer legal counsel, but we are willing to attempt to connect you with professionals who can. Get in touch with us at +1 (202) 386-6325 or via email at [email protected].
Our Travel Ban Center offers essential Know Your Rights documents and provides links to legal resources.
The following attorneys have experience working with the Iranian community and may offer legal services or counsel:
What will happen to visa issuances for Iranians?
We anticipate a significant decrease in visa issuances to Iranian nationals if Iran is once more targeted under a ban. While visa processing rebounded to some degree after the ban was lifted by the Biden administration, with nearly 25,000 immigrant and nonimmigrant visas granted to Iranian nationals in each of the last two fiscal years, Trump’s concluding two fiscal years recorded fewer than 7,000 Iranian visas. In comparison, these figures are minor when contrasted with visa issuances during the Obama administration, when Iranian visa issuances consistently exceeded 30,000 and surpassed 40,000 in two fiscal years.
Are there legal or legislative avenues to halt this ban?
There will be legal and legislative avenues to contest any new ban and seek relief for individual cases, although it is challenging to predict outcomes before a ban is definitively unveiled.
Early in Trump’s first term, several legal actions initially succeeded in suspending the implementation of the first two iterations of the ban – Executive Order 13769 and Executive Order 13780. During each ban, judges sided with plaintiffs who contended that the bans were rooted in unlawful religious discrimination, issuing orders to prevent nationwide implementation of the bans during judicial review. However, the final version of the ban – Presidential Proclamation 9645 – advanced to the Supreme Court.
In a landmark 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Hawaii, a majority of the Supreme Court allowed the ban to take effect, asserting that the President possesses the power to restrict the entry of aliens into the United States and emphasizing the inclusion of a waiver process in the proclamation. Conversely, the dissenting opinion highlighted the Trump administration’s track record of hostility towards Muslim populations, the ineffectiveness of the waiver, and the absence of evidence supporting a national security basis for the ban. If the ban closely resembles the one upheld in 2018, the Trump v. Hawaii precedent could restrict legal options for contesting a future ban. Nonetheless, separate litigation has been initiated and provided forms of relief to those affected by the initial bans.
Legislation has been proposed in previous Congresses, known as the NO BAN Act, which would restrict the Executive Branch’s authority to unilaterally enact travel bans without fulfilling specific criteria. This legislation is expected to be reintroduced in the new Congress but faces significant obstacles in becoming law due to insufficient support from Congressional Republicans.
How did Trump decide to target the nations included in the bans during his first term?
Following Trump’s promise to establish a Muslim ban, he allegedly inquired of his advisors how to implement one “legally.” This inquiry led Trump’s advisors to single out seven Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – in their initial ban, Executive Order 13769. These countries seemingly were selected due to discriminatory measures implemented during the Obama era related to the Visa Waiver Program. Specifically, these measures restricted dual nationals and individuals who had visited the targeted nations from taking part in visa-free travel to the United States, mandating that they apply for visas instead. These discriminatory measures faced opposition from many, yet they laid the groundwork for a significantly broader and harsher ban on any new visas, demonstrating a slippery slope that escalated to more severe restrictions and harm.
When the courts halted the implementation of the first ban, the Trump administration persisted with Executive Order 13780. This order defended the administration’s choice to impose a ban on nationals from the targeted countries, reinstating the restrictions under a new mandate, though it also encountered serious legal challenges that temporarily prevented its implementation. The Executive Order further mandated the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to produce a joint report assessing whether “additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public-safety threat.” This directive led to a report recommending that various restrictions under the bans remain enforced.
Subsequently, Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 9645 on September 24, 2017, referencing the findings of the report shared by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State. This ban, bolstered by dubious legal arguments and the inclusion of a waiver – which saw minimal usage – was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling. Over time, some countries were removed from the ban’s targeting, including Iraq and Sudan, while additional countries such as Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela were added, likely as a means to fortify the bans against legal opposition. The ban remained in effect, preventing tens of thousands from obtaining visas solely based on their national origin, until Joe Biden correctly rescinded the ban on his first day in office.
This page was created programmatically, to read the article in its original location you can visit the link below:
https://www.niacouncil.org/news/frequently-asked-questions-faq-president-trumps-executive-order-setting-up-return-of-the-travel-ban/
and if you wish to remove this article from our site please reach out to us
