The U.S. District Court of Connecticut issued a preliminary injunction Saturday barring the federal government from revoking the immigration statuses of four Connecticut university students.
The four students — Yan Du and Mengni He of Yale University and Elika Shams and Stephen Azu of the University of Connecticut — filed a lawsuit against the federal government in April after their immigration statuses were terminated, along with hundreds of other international students across the country. In Connecticut, at least 50 international students had their visas revoked.
He, a Chinese citizen studying chemical and environmental engineering, and Azu, a Ghanian national participating in a year-long practical training program at UConn in actuarial science, both had been cited for traffic violations.
Du, a Chinese citizen studying experimental pathology, had his visa erroneously terminated by Yale (it was later restored). Shams, who is from Iran and pursuing a PhD in biomedical engineering at UConn, received a warning from TSA after arguing with an airline staff member. She also had a previous student visa canceled, and later reinstated, due to a “misunderstanding,” according to court documents.
The court’s order noted that federal officials hadn’t given any reason the students’ immigration status records were revoked, but that information from the Department of Homeland Security indicated the students had been identified in the National Crime Information Center database, which includes information from federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as the FBI.
[RELATED: CT students’ visas revoked: As details emerge, fears escalate]
The government restored the F-1 immigration status of all four students in late April.
In response to the lawsuit, the government argued that an injunction was unnecessary, since the federal government had already restored the students’ immigration statuses and instated a new policy — on April 26 — that the government wouldn’t revoke immigration statuses again for the same reason.
But attorneys for the students argued the government’s decision gave no assurance the visa restoration would last.
“ We didn’t receive any information from the government that made us or our clients feel very comfortable that this wouldn’t happen again,” said Jaclyn Blickley, an attorney with the ACLU of Connecticut who is representing the students.
District Judge Omar A. Williams agreed.
“The April 26 Policy clearly does little to ensure that the challenged conduct will not recur. Taking the new policy at face value, ICE will not terminate Plaintiffs’ F–1 records based solely on the same challenged basis it originally invoked,” Williams wrote. “This leaves open the glaring possibility that, absent a preliminary injunction, ICE may invoke a new (but still improper) justification to terminate Plaintiffs’ records in the future.”
Four other courts — in Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Michigan — have also issued preliminary injunctions against the Department of Homeland Security.
Chris Llinas, one of the attorneys representing the students, told The Connecticut Mirror that the injunction was necessary to protect students from the unpredictability of the federal government.
He referenced a New York Times article quoting a Justice Department lawyer who said the government was looking at “a new system for reviewing and terminating” student visas. He also noted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had announced he was pausing appointments for visa interviews while the government evaluates the social media accounts of visa applicants.
Blickley, of the ACLU, said the injunction allowed the students to continue their studies and research without fear their statuses could be revoked again without warning.
Llinas said because the termination is still part of their official records, the students could have problems if they try to apply for a green card, or if they leave and attempt to reenter the country.
Judge Williams also said revocations of the students’ F-1 immigration statuses were not “authorized by statute or regulation.” Under U.S. law, international students can lose their immigration status only for certain reasons: failing to complete their course of study, working without authorization, giving false information to the Department of Homeland Security or being convicted of a crime resulting in more than a year in prison. The government can also revoke status “on the basis of national security, diplomatic, or public safety reasons.”
The order concluded that it was “in the public interest” to protect the international student program in the face of the “uncertain and chaotic environment” created by the federal government. And Williams noted the students would suffer more without the injunction than the federal government would if it were imposed.
“None of the plaintiffs has any criminal convictions, nor does any one of them arguably pose an articulable threat to the community (nor to any specific person within it),” Williams wrote. “In contrast, without injunctive relief, Plaintiffs’ [immigration] records remain in jeopardy, which threatens their lawful status, their liberty, and their academic and professional opportunities.”
The injunction applies only to the four students named in the lawsuit, but Llinas said the next step is to push to expand the order to cover all students in Connecticut who had their immigration statuses terminated — he estimated between 50 and 75 students in the state fall within that category.
Blickley said she’s hopeful the court would grant the expanded injunction, since the four plaintiffs in this case had received a temporary restraining order — and, now, a preliminary injunction.
“These decisions to me really reflect that the court understands the gravity of what happened to our four plaintiffs, and takes that very seriously,” she said. “I’m hopeful that the court will see all students in Connecticut as being in that same situation, that same boat with the same level of gravity.”
