Student suing Riverdale Country School claims he was wrongfully expelled over false rape allegation

On June 18, 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a key step toward fulfilling President Biden’s commitment to promoting family unity in the immigration system. On Aug. 19, 2024, DHS implemented Keeping Families Together, a process for certain noncitizen spouses and noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens to request parole in place under existing statutory authority. Parole is an exercise of DHS’s discretionary authority under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to allow certain noncitizen “applicants for admission” to be present in the United States on a temporary, case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. The INA defines an “applicant for admission,” in relevant part, as a noncitizen “present in the United States who has not been admitted.” Noncitizens who are present in the United States without admission or parole may be considered for parole in place under this process because they remain “applicants for admission.” Parole in place is available only for noncitizens who are present in the United States. If granted parole, and if otherwise eligible, these noncitizens may apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident without being required to leave the United States and be processed by a U.S. consulate overseas. DHS estimates that 500,000 noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens could be eligible to access Keeping Families Together; on average, these noncitizens have resided in the United States for 23 years. In addition, approximately 50,000 noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens are estimated to be eligible to seek parole under Keeping Families Together. USCIS is committed to program integrity and protection against fraud. Using existing training and practices to identify fraudulent evidence, USCIS will be reviewing submitted evidence supporting the existence of a legally valid marriage. In its consideration of the Form I-131F, USCIS will employ rigorous procedures to detect potential fraud concerns, ensuring that potentially fraudulent marriages will not serve as the basis for a grant of adjustment of status following access to this process. For more information on this process, see the Frequently Asked Questions About Keeping Families Together page and the Federal Register notice . Read Article Here

Osama Mohamed let out a sigh of relief as he and his wife stood at the steps of the US Embassy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on the first day of September. Clutched tightly in his hands was the letter he’d been chasing for nearly a year and a half. “Congratulations!” its bolded words declared. “Your US Visa has been approved.” It had been 16 months since Mohamed, 28, had first applied to the United States Diversity Visa program. His petition became even more urgent in April, when political upheaval in his home country of Sudan prompted by an ongoing conflict that has resulted in thousands of casualties left Mohamed’s family home, near the capital in Khartoum, destroyed. The program has come to be known as the “green card lottery,” in which applicants submit to a laborious 10-step process of petitioning for entry into the United States. Once they arrive, they’re recognized as permanent residents, permitted to work, and enter the path of citizenship. It’s a longshot, by design, intended to open additional visas to would-be immigrants from countries that send relatively small numbers of people to the United States each year. The final step in the process is an in-person interview, often requiring applicants to traverse international borders to the nearest US Embassy. Mohamed and his wife traveled 700 miles to Addis Ababa for their interview, at which they were told in writing their visa had been approved. It was an “indescribable feeling,” Mohamed recalls, to hold a winning lottery ticket in hand. But just a few minutes later, Mohamed heard his name called over the public address system. The worker at window 7 explained that his application needed to be processed further. Mohamed was assured by a case officer that it would all be quickly resolved. Then, a week later, an email arrived: “The Department of State has issued all available diversity visas for the 2023 Diversity Visa (DV) Program,” it informed him. “You are welcome to reapply in future program years.” “At that very moment you receive the news that you’ve been selected, you undoubtedly have trust in the government’s promise.” Last month, the State Department informed applicants across the world that the US had awarded all 55,000 diversity visas being granted this year, despite the fact that more than 4,000 applicants were still in process, awaiting scheduled interviews for the program—the final step of an arduous process requiring fees, medical exams and often travel to embassies in other countries. Immigration attorneys say they have never experienced so many people being denied slots after reaching the interview stage. “I’ve talked to hundreds of Diversity Visa families whose interviews were canceled this month, and it’s just heartbreaking,” said Curtis Morrison, an immigration attorney based in San Diego. “There’s no excuse for the incompetence that caused this.” Immigration experts say that this year’s administrative chaos was likely prompted by a larger wave of applicants who were able to travel internationally to attend interviews than were at the height of the pandemic. They also note that the US has now abandoned the so-called “passport rule” implemented during the Trump administration—that required a valid passport be in hand before someone could apply to enter the diversity visa lottery. In response to the outrage of attorneys such as Morrison and his clients, the State Department issued a statement in early September noting that the program purposely schedules more interviews than it has slots as a means of ensuring all of the visas are distributed. “Due to the probability that some of the first 55,000 persons selected will not qualify for visas or ultimately choose not to participate in the program, more individuals are selected to participate in the program each year than the number of visas which are available,” the department said. But immigration attorneys note that, for many families, attending these interviews often requires financial sacrifice and international travel that can take weeks to coordinate. “I am devastated for the families that have made all the preparations for the DV interview only to be canceled at the 11th hour,” said Abadir Barre, a New York-based immigration attorney who said he has heard from families caught in the chaos. “The State Department needs to keep a better track on the number of visas issued so that hopeful applicants are not strung along to the end only to be told their interview is canceled because the cap has been reached.” Interviews with more than 100 of this year’s diversity visa applicants revealed at least 15 cases like Mohamed’s, in which applicants were told in writing that they would be admitted to the US only to be later informed that the visa they had been promised was gone.“You wouldn’t imagine that it would become like this and you wouldn’t imagine that you would be an outsider floundering in these statistics,” said Mohamed, who stayed in Ethiopia, hoping he’d eventually receive more clarity from the US embassy but instead amassed $360 in fines for overstaying his scheduled time in the country. The 30 members of the Senate and House immigration committees, contacted through their congressional offices, did not respond to requests for comment. An aide to one member, who requested anonymity to speak freely, noted that the State Department has undergone efforts in recent years to reduce the risk of fraud within the diversity visa program, which could result in technical problems or individual errors. “With that being said, obviously, in-limbo families should not be provided misinformation,” the aide said. Asked about these cases in which applicants were told they had been given a visa only to later learn they would not receive one, a State Department spokesperson said that the agency cannot discuss the specifics of individual cases. “We acknowledge that the conclusion of the 2023 program may be disappointing to selectees who were unable to receive a visa,” the State Department spokesman said via email, noting that those whose interviews were canceled are welcome to begin the process again by applying for next year’s program. “The 2025 Diversity Visa Program entry period will open in early October, and we encourage all who are eligible to apply.” The Diversity Visa program was launched in 1995, several years after the Immigration Act of 1990 increased immigration quotas and emphasized family reunification in the prioritization of who is allowed into the country. It was designed to allow would-be migrants from countries with historically low immigration rates to the U.S. a better chance at being admitted—and has drawn about 112,000 applicants each year. “It’s important to recognize the significant role diversity visas have come to play in our legal immigration system, in part because Congress has not enacted needed reforms in more than 30 years,” said Andrew Moriarty, policy analyst at FWD.us, an immigration advocacy group, who noted that it remains remarkably difficult for many would-be immigrants to receive visas to come to the U.S. “The diversity visa lottery is the only way for…most people around the world have to have a chance to come into the United States.” Elisbet García, who ran a children’s entertainment company in her native Venezuela, is among those who went to extraordinary lengths to secure a visa through the program in recent years. She first applied in 2018, submitting her entry an hour before the deadline. In 2019 she found out that she, her husband, and their three children had been selected. By the time García and her family had secured all of the documents they needed and sold their belongings, the Covid-19 pandemic struck, leaving airports, bus routes, roads, and other means of transportation in Venezuela shut down. García insisted to her husband that they find a way. He told her, “’It’s in your hands. Your responsibility if something happens to the kids.” The family walked 350 miles and crossed the border into Colombia in order to get to a US embassy, where they took the final step of in-person interviews. They passed and were then able to secure spots on one of the few planes departing for the States. By June 2020, they had settled in Atlanta. Like others who’ve come to the US during the program, García, who was interviewed in Spanish, said that once applicants are promised a visa, they are fully committed to coming to the US and begin making decisions such as quitting jobs and selling homes—actions that cannot be undone. “The diversity visa is a beautiful promise… at that very moment you receive the news that you’ve been selected, you undoubtedly have trust in the government’s promise,” said Garcia, who lives now in Atlanta and still running her entertainment company. “When you receive the information, you feel this is something meant for you.” After four years working as the head of sales for a clothing warehouse in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, Binar Haji Ali, 25, aspired to a higher-paying job in America. “It is so hard to get a job in Iraq because of the political conditions,” Ali said. “So I decided to choose another country to live in, and I think that the US is the best country” for the work that he does. He applied for the diversity visa program earlier this year, and on Sept. 4 was interviewed by a case worker at the US embassy in Baghdad, where he was told he had been approved for a visa and asked to provide additional medical records. Elated, he resigned from his job and began preparations to move to America. Then, on September 7, he got the same email that was sent to applicants across the world, informing them that there were no more visas available. “I’m very disappointed right now,” said Ali, who has yet to find a new job in Iraq. “Because I was given a lot of hope.” He said that he’d even begun laying out and packing the clothes he planned to bring to America. A thousand miles west, Abobaker Mobasher was facing the same disappointment. For 20 years, Mobasher had dreamed of leaving his home in Sudan to come to the United States. Sometimes he would memorize street names of American cities by exploring Google Earth’s 3D street view. He was overwhelmed with happiness when, in early August, a consul officer at the U.S. embassy in Cairo handed him a letter informing him that his application had been approved. “Congratulations!” the letter declared. “Your immigrant visa has been approved by the consular officer, and it should be processed within two weeks of your interview date.” But soon after, Mobasher received an alert that his application had been placed back into administrative processing. He assumed that perhaps there was an issue with his and his wife’s passports. When he contacted the embassy, he said, they assured him that the issue was being dealt with. Days of waiting turned into weeks, before ultimately, Mobasher was told that all of the diversity visas available for 2023 had been given to other people. Mobasher was among a wave of Sudanese applicants who, spurred by an ongoing violent conflict that has left thousands dead and displaced from the Eastern African nation, hoped the diversity visa program would provide his family a pathway to safety. Carly Goodman, a historian and author of “ Dreamland: America’s Immigration Lottery in an Age of Restriction ” said that for many would-be immigrants, the diversity visa program is the only chance of making it to the US Other avenues, such as workers’ visas, are more tedious and exclusionary, while the humanitarian visas offered to asylum seekers must be requested in-person at a U.S. port of entry, an option unavailable to those fleeing conflicts in many parts of the world. “You hear people say ‘Why don’t you just come the right way?’” Goodman said. “There’s this kind of irony, which is really the diversity visa lottery is the only way for…most people around the world have to have a chance to come into the United States.” Given the administrative errors and the ongoing conflict in Sudan, Mobasher said Secretary of State Antony Blinken should authorize additional visas “to address the Sudanese cases who have become stateless citizens and have struggled to reach the interview” —cases like that of Mohamed Abdelrahim. After being told his family had been approved for the diversity visa program, Abdelrahim, 39, spent thousands of dollars compiling medical records and on flights to get himself, his pregnant wife, and their two sons from Sudan to Tunisia, where in January they arrived with just a single suitcase between them. But at the US embassy, they were handed only three visas—not four. A consular officer explained to Abdelrahim that his name had been misspelled in the system and so his visa had not been processed. His choice was to remain behind while his family departed for the US or for everyone to remain and reapply for the program next year. Abdelrahim chose to send his family ahead, remaining in Tunisia where he hoped to sort out the problems with his application before this year’s program closed at the end of September. On September 5, he was told that the administrative errors had been fixed but that there was now another problem—the medical exam that he submitted had expired in July and he’d need a new one. He began scrambling to set up a new exam, but two days later the State Department announced this year’s visas were all gone. In the months since they departed, Abdelrahim’s family has settled in Dayton, Ohio, and his wife—whose doctors have sent letters to the State Department on their behalf—is due to deliver their third child in mid-October. They’re in the US to stay. But it’s unclear when, or if, Abedelrahim will be able to join them. “It separated me from my family,” said Abdelrahim, who for the time being moved to Libya. “My wife is going through the most difficult days of her life and needs my support.” View Article Here

Nearly 25 years ago, my family and I fled war-torn Somalia and sought safe haven in the U.S. I had left one of the most homogeneous societies on the planet and came to a country that is one of the most diverse. I quickly learned that what binds America’s amalgamation of cultures is a sincere belief that the people who make up this society are “one nation, under God.” I realized the ideals I learned in school — democracy, equality, justice, and freedom — were not merely historical anecdotes but principles deeply held and defended by Americans. Throughout my childhood, people were mostly welcoming and friendly. And while xenophobic strains have always existed in America, the xenophobia I encountered growing up in the 1990s did not usually exceed ignorance or disrespect. Related: Trump right to protect nation with travel ban At a young age, I discovered that if a person got to know me, any preconceived notions they held about Somalis or Muslims were overruled by their direct experience in getting to know me. But today, bigotry toward immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants, has intensified and accelerated to include vandalism, violent hate crimes and wholesale support for anti-immigrant public policies. The Founding Fathers advocated for a radical idea, that a nation could be built on democracy, equality, justice and freedom for its citizens. As I came of age in the U.S., I became fixated, even radicalized, with the founding principles of our nation. This radicalization culminated on the day I became a naturalized citizen. While adjusting to life in America, my family and I began the extensive process of citizenship: lengthy forms, biometrics, background checks, medical exams, interviews, an English language test and a civics exam — until finally we took the Oath of Allegiance. In short, we, like millions of immigrants, earned our citizenship. My commitment to the Oath of Allegiance did not stop at my naturalization ceremony, like most immigrants turned citizens, I took it to heart. This commitment led me to study political science at University of California-Berkeley and later earn a law degree from Washington University in St. Louis with a focus on civil and human rights. As a law student, I took my American values back to Somalia and contributed my legal expertise to strengthening the rule of law in Somalia. I had deep discussions with people who witnessed some of the world’s most egregious human rights atrocities. I found Somalis are primarily concerned with achieving a better life. I was constantly asked about life in America, more specifically about the American Dream. They are attracted to the radical notion that a poor immigrant could relocate to America and build a successful life while enjoying equal rights and freedom. I proudly told them that, if you’re going to be an immigrant, the best country to immigrate to is the U.S. It pains me that I can no longer boast about America’s receptiveness to immigrants under the Trump administration. Donald Trump’s executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim majority countries is an assault on our American ideals. The Trump administration reasons that by banning Muslim immigrants, America will be protected from the possibility of a radical jihadist terrorist inflicting harm on Americans. The benefit of hindsight disproves this theory, as no immigrant from the seven banned countries has carried out a fatal terror attack within the U.S. in more than four decades. Allowing Muslim immigrants into the U.S. is far more likely to produce a radical American constitutionalist than a radical “Islamic” terrorist. Muslim immigrants continually contribute to this country by establishing businesses that create jobs, setting up charities, engaging in civic duties, and abiding by the law and paying taxes. Moreover, naturalized citizens passionately defend the Constitution as members of the armed forces, law enforcement, civil rights advocates, public officials, and activists. Like millions of Muslim immigrants, I am the successful product of a compassionate and inclusive immigration policy. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at the notion of banning immigrants based on their faith. They would argue it’s unconstitutional, immoral and un-American. The Muslim ban betrayed my American ideals, insulted my religion and degraded my country of origin. I am proud of the numerous ways my fellow Americans resisted the Trump Administration’s attack on our civil liberties. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to not reinstate the ban was very commendable, but it is a temporary relief. We are long overdue for an honest and open dialogue regarding long-term progressive immigration policy. In an effort to foster understanding, I urge anyone who supports, or is indifferent, to the Muslim ban to do something radically patriotic — get to know one of the millions of Muslim immigrants already living here. You will find that they are just as American as you. Barre, a recent law school graduate, is a San Diego resident. View Article Here

Law360 (December 4, 2020, 10:58 PM EST) -- A government attorney told a California federal judge Friday that President Donald Trump lawfully barred noncitizens from moving to the U.S. on new green cards under a coronavirus-related order, arguing that the president's exclusion powers are sweeping. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen fielded arguments over whether he should strike down Trump's green card ban, with government attorney Kimberly Robinson once again invoking the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision to back Trump's previous ban on immigration by individuals from several Muslim-majority countries. "The Hawaii court was quite clear," Robinson said. "Plaintiffs' counsel stated that the president's power is not limitless, but Justice Ginsburg said that the president's power is sweeping." The high court's split ruling upholding the so-called Muslim ban has been a cornerstone within the Trump administration's defense of his latest restrictions — the green card ban that came down in April, and a June order that extended the green card restrictions through the end of the year and instituted a temporary ban on certain work-visa holders. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented on the Muslim ban ruling. Robinson argued that Trump met the "sole prerequisite" the Supreme Court set on his exclusionary powers when he cited findings from the secretaries of labor and homeland security that allowing foreign workers into the country would threaten the U.S.' economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. Abadir Barre, counsel for the nearly 200 individuals with family members stranded abroad, countered that Trump's June proclamation — the one that included his secretary's findings — spoke of the economic effects of work-based immigration, not family-based. "None of that is stated here in the four corners of this proclamation," he said. Barre noted that his clients include U.S.-based parents attempting to reunite with their children abroad. "We have 22 children," he said. "How can 22 children take away jobs from adults that are working?" But Robinson pointed out that it was 22 children, as well as adult family members who would work in the U.S. after they enter the country. "They're not coming in here simply to work," Barre responded. In October, individuals attempting to bring their spouses, children and family members into the U.S. filed suit in the California court, alleging that their reunification efforts ground to a halt when Trump issued his green card ban. They argue that Trump lacked the authority to restrict immigration in such a way, claiming Trump used the ongoing health emergency to attack family-based immigration and noting his several tweets and live appearances disparaging the program. They additionally lobbed claims at the U.S. Department of State . Though their petitions to bring their family members into the U.S. have been approved, the individuals claim that the government illegally stopped processing their visa applications. The challenge to the ban will rest in part on how the court interprets Trump's exclusion powers. Federal courts have already split on those limits as they hear challenges to the visa ban. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta of Washington, D.C., found the visa ban legal . However, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, Judge Chen's colleague in the Northern District of California, ruled against the ban , saying Trump could use his exclusion powers to address foreign policy concerns, but not the domestic issue of unemployment. However, whether a California federal judge will again interpret the scope of Trump's exclusion powers is in doubt. The government has asked the court to send the case to D.C., with Robinson arguing that the current suit closely resembled the case ongoing there. Under the first-to-file rule, the case belongs in Washington, Robinson said. However, Barre argued that the suit is narrowly tailored to the question of family-based immigration. The litigation before Judge Mehta was brought by a broad array of plaintiffs, including work-visa holders and diversity visa winners. Judge Chen took note of the suit before Judge White, saying it also looked a lot like Barre's case, even if it was brought by businesses attempting to bring workers from abroad. "I understand they're not identical, but a lot of the issues, in the end, overlap. It does involve the same proclamation, the same defendants," Judge Chen said. "We're already at the point where we've scattered the challenges here, so the first-to-file loses some of its teeth." The immigrants are represented by Curtis Lee Morrison, Kristina Ghazaryan and Abadir Barre of the Law Office of Rafael Ureña. The federal government is represented by Kimberly A. Robinson of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. The case is Young et al v. Trump et al, case number 4:20-cv-07183 , in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. --Editing by Breda Lund. View Article Here

Sulaiman Dihyem's first son was born — and died — an American citizen in a foreign land. The proud dad was in Brooklyn last month when his wife delivered their doomed child in war-torn Yemen, and he blames the Trump administration for keeping his pregnant spouse and unborn son from joining him in the U.S. "Especially Trump," he said. As he closed up shop at his downtown Brooklyn 99-cent store, Dihyem told the Daily News about the long-distance call with the heartbreaking news about his newborn boy. "It was horrible," he recounted "That's my first baby. And I was trying to make a baby for like four years. And when it comes ..." He fell momentarily silent before insisting the tragedy was preventable. Three times since April 2017, his applications to bring Yemeni spouse Hanan Ali Farhan Al-Ward to the U.S. were unsuccessful. "All the Trump thinking — it just started slowing (things) down, denying people," he said. "It's getting worse and worse." Dihyem filed a lawsuit April 9 in Brooklyn Federal Court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asking for a ruling on his application to reunite with his ailing, anguished wife in his Bushwick apartment. The lawsuit charges that the way authorities handle petitions for American citizens looking to bring Yemeni relatives into the U.S. is unconstitutional. Applications from Muslim-majority countries in general are treated differently, the lawsuit charges. Al-Ward went into labor last month in Yemen, where gunfire earlier in the day made it too dicey to travel through the city streets of Sana'a to a hospital. She instead remained inside her sixth-floor apartment, where three bullets had whizzed through the living room window two months earlier. A local midwife arrived, willing to help but minus the necessary medical equipment. When the almost-10-pound boy was delivered, the newborn had no heartbeat. By law, a child born outside the country becomes an American citizen at birth, providing the parent with U.S. citizenship resided in the country for five years prior to the birth. Dihyem spoke with The News one day after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the legality of the Trump administration's travel ban. Yemen is one of several Muslim-majority countries subject to the rule. The story of Dihyem and Al-Ward, both 25, shows the sea-change in policy toward granting visas and U.S. entry, explained Dihyem's attorney, Julie Goldberg. While Goldberg acknowledges issues with Yemeni immigration cases are nothing new, she insists "there's no way under the Obama administration (that Dihyem's) case would've been denied." The Trump administration "put (in) all this policy … that intentionally delayed these cases," she said. Dihyem was born in Yonkers, where he lived his first six or seven years. His family moved to Yemen, where he and Al-Ward were neighbors and close friends. Dihyem returned to New York in 2010, but stayed in touch with Al-Ward. They became engaged in 2011 and married in May 2013. Dihyem gave immigration officials records including a marriage contract, marriage registration, wedding invitation, photos, declarations from friends and family, and records of money he sent to Al-Ward. Dihyem also underwent an interview — which the feds said showed "inconsistencies" with his written statements. Yet Goldberg insists birth certificates, marriage documents, pictures and a check were enough when it came to relatives coming from other countries. At a court conference earlier this month, a government lawyer noted immigration officials are flooded with about 1 million annual applications from people like Dihyem. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Marutollo said the feds are under no obligation to expedite review and claimed two of Dihyem's three requests weren't done properly. Judge Brian Cogan said he recognized "what a horrible situation the plaintiffs are in." According to transcripts, Cogan later said "there may or may not be a very good case for saying that there is anti-Muslim discrimination going on." Cogan said he couldn't answer that weighty question right there and then. But he quickly wants depositions and evidence production on application processing speeds. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said it couldn't discuss pending litigation. The Brooklyn U.S. attorney's office declined to comment. But in the past two weeks, Goldberg said, newborns with American citizenship through a parent died in Yemen and Djibouti while paperwork languished. Dihyem speaks to his wife every day. She's awaiting surgery for a labor-related infection. He wishes she could just be here. "I don't know when she's coming, if she's coming," he said. With Christina Carrega View Article Here