This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/01/trump-travel-ban-lawsuit-settlement-reapply-visas
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| US will help people barred by first Trump travel ban to reapply for visas | US will help people barred by first Trump travel ban to reapply for visas |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Foreigners who were barred from entering the US during Donald Trump’s first attempt to ban travel from seven Muslim-majority countries will get government help reapplying for visas under a lawsuit settlement reached on Thursday. | |
| Civil rights lawyers and the Trump administration announced the deal during a conference call in federal court in Brooklyn, one scene of the legal battle over the treatment of hundreds of travelers who were processed at US airports over a chaotic weekend in January. | Civil rights lawyers and the Trump administration announced the deal during a conference call in federal court in Brooklyn, one scene of the legal battle over the treatment of hundreds of travelers who were processed at US airports over a chaotic weekend in January. |
| Under the terms of the settlement, the government agreed to notify an unspecified number of people overseas who were banned that they can reapply for visas with the help of a Department of Justice (DoJ) liaison for a three-month period. In return, the plaintiffs said they would drop all their claims. | Under the terms of the settlement, the government agreed to notify an unspecified number of people overseas who were banned that they can reapply for visas with the help of a Department of Justice (DoJ) liaison for a three-month period. In return, the plaintiffs said they would drop all their claims. |
| “We are pleased with the settlement and that this chapter in the fight is done,” said Lee Gerlent, an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney. | |
| Gerlent said it was unclear how many people would benefit from the settlement because the government has refused to disclose the total. | |
| A DoJ statement read: “Although this case has been moot since March, when the president rescinded the original executive order and issued a new one that does not restrict the entry of Iraqi nationals, the US government has elected to settle this case on favorable terms.” | A DoJ statement read: “Although this case has been moot since March, when the president rescinded the original executive order and issued a new one that does not restrict the entry of Iraqi nationals, the US government has elected to settle this case on favorable terms.” |
| The ACLU, along with the National Immigration Law Center and the International Refugee Assistance Project, sued on behalf of two Iraqi nationals after the Trump administration implemented a policy on 27 January that barred entry of visa holders from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. One of the plaintiffs was Hameed Khalid Darweesh, a translator who has done work for the US military, who was detained at John F Kennedy international airport. | The ACLU, along with the National Immigration Law Center and the International Refugee Assistance Project, sued on behalf of two Iraqi nationals after the Trump administration implemented a policy on 27 January that barred entry of visa holders from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. One of the plaintiffs was Hameed Khalid Darweesh, a translator who has done work for the US military, who was detained at John F Kennedy international airport. |
| A federal judge blocked the ban eight days later in a ruling upheld by a circuit court. Rather than pursue an appeal, the administration said it would revise the policy. | A federal judge blocked the ban eight days later in a ruling upheld by a circuit court. Rather than pursue an appeal, the administration said it would revise the policy. |
| In June, the supreme court found that the narrower order could be enforced if those visitors lacked a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”. |