U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson ruled late Thursday in favor of the state of Hawaii’s motion to overrule the Trump administration’s definition of “bona fide relationship.” This allows grandparents and other distant relatives of American residents to arrive in the country as refugees from any country and travelers from six Middle Eastern countries temporarily banned from arriving in the United States under Executive Order 13780.

Watson, whose March 29 preliminary injuction in Hawaii v. Trump halting Section 2 (c) (the temporary travel ban) and Section 6 (the temporary refugee ban) of Executive Order 13780, signed by President Trump on March 6, was partially overturned by the Supreme Court in its unanimous June 26 decision is in effect daring the Supreme Court to overrule him again.

“What is clear from the Supreme Court’s decision is that this Court’s analysis is to be guided by consideration of whether foreign nationals have a requisite ‘connection’ or ‘tie’ to this country,” Watson ruled, siding with the brief filed by the state of Hawaii, in which they argued, “The Supreme Court held that the injunction “clearly” protects aliens “similarly situated” to a U.S. person’s mother-in-law . . . , a relative that is—like a grandparent, a niece, and so on—two “degree[s] of kinship” removed from a U.S. person .”

“Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents. Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members. The Government’s definition excludes them. That simply cannot be,” Watson added.

What the Supreme Court actually said in its June 26 decision in reference to “mother-in-law” is this:

“The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required,” the Supreme Court wrote in its unanimous June 26 decision:

The Dr. Elshikh referenced in the Supreme Court is the second plaintiff in the case, Dr Ismail Elshikh, an Egyptian born legal resident of the United States who heads up the largest mosque in Hawaii. He resides in the United States with his wife, whose mother–Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law– is therefore “one degree of kinship” removed from a resident of the United States.

“The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity,” the Court added:

Watson also sided with the state of Hawaii, which has resettled only three refugees so far in FY 2017 and none in FY 2016, and granted its motion to define a “bona fide relationship” between an individual or an entity as including a promise made by a federally funded refugee resettlement agency to relocate the foreign national in the United States as a refugee.

“An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court’s touchstones: it is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades,” Watson wrote.

The Court, in its June 26 decision, wrote that “The Hawaii injunction extends beyond §2(c) to bar enforcement of the §6(a) suspension of refugee admissions and the §6(b) refugee cap.”

An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security. The Government’s application to stay the injunction with respect to §§6(a) and (b) is accordingly granted in part. Section 6(a) may not be enforced against an individual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Nor may §6(b); that is, such a person may not be excluded pursuant to §6(b), even if the 50,000-person cap has been reached or exceeded. As applied to all other individuals, the provisions may take effect

Watson’s decision may will further polarize the country between the blue states and the red states.

On Monday, for instance 14 blue states, the District of Columbia, and the state of Iowa, which voted for Trump, filed a filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Hawaii’s motion.

It may also once more generate calls for his impeachment.

“Watson’s reasoning is so convoluted and were it actually true that a refugee resettlement agency had a ‘contract’ inferring that there was some kind of commitment or expectations of how many refugees they would be paid to resettle, then a resettlement agency would have sued long ago if they didn’t get the number of refugees they proposed taking,” an attorney familiar with the refugee resettlement program tells Breitbart News.

“We know this is really about two things – obstructing Trump and keeping the money flowing,” the attorney adds.

In his partially concurring, partially dissenting opinion released as part of the June 26 Supreme Court Decision, Justice Clarence Thomas predicted the bureaucratic mess and left wing lawfare that would be the result.

Though Thomas did not explicitly state it, the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision failed to acknowledge that there is no statutory basis for the “bona fide relationship” exception in the refugee admissions program it added.

“But the Court takes the additional step of keeping the injunctions in place with regard to an unidentified, unnamed group of foreign nationals abroad,” Thomas wrote.

“Moreover, I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” Thomas concluded in his dissent:

Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt— whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country. The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a “bona fide relationship,” who precisely has a “credible claim” to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed “simply to avoid §2(c)” of Executive Order No. 13780. And litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably be directed to the two District Courts whose initial orders in these cases this Court has now—unanimously—found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected.

As it relates to the refugee portion of his decision, Judge Watson’s decision influences only the last eleven weeks of FY 2017, which was the limit of Section 6 in Executive Order 13780.

Congress has only funded the resettlement of about 62,500 refugees in FY 2017.

On Thursday, the first day in which the Trump administration’s definition of “bona fide relationship went into effect, 81 refugees were allowed into the country.

By law, the President establishes the ceiling for refugees, and in consultation with Congress establishes the budget to fund the resettlement of those refugees.

In September 2016, before the beginning of FY 2017, President Obama set a refugee ceiling for FY 2017 at 110,000, but Congress never provided that level of funding for the program.

President Trump’s ceiling of 50,000 was specified in the Executive Order 13780.

As of 11 p.m. eastern on July 13, 50,186 refugees have been resettled in the United States during FY 2017, 186 above Trump’s limit, according to the State Department’s interactive website.

It marks the first time in the history of the program that a ceiling established by a U.S. President has been exceeded.

FY 2017 is unusual, however, since the original ceiling of 110,000 was established by a lame duck president who served only three and a half months of the fiscal year for which he set the ceiling, Congress only funded about 62,500 refugees ultimately for the fiscal year, and President Trump established the ceiling in an executive order issued five months into the fiscal year.

The real test of Trump administration’s policy regarding refugees will come in September, when he issues a ceiling recommendation for FY 2018.

Meanwhile, Judge Watson’s decision, if it remains in effect, will simply be about how much money federal taxpayers will pay resettlement agencies for the remaining eleven weeks of FY 2017.

At the 81 refugees per day rate of July 13 which, presumably reflects the Trump administration’s narrow definition of “bona fide relationship,” another 4,400 refugees will be resettled in FY 2017, bringing the total in FY 2017 to 54,500.

In contrast, if the Trump administration follows the broader definition forced upon it by Judge Watson’s decision, another 12,000 to 12,500 refugees will be resettled in FY 2017, bringing the total in FY 2017 to slightly over 62,000.

The next step as it relates to the FY 2017 refugee admission numbers and the travel ban is up to the Trump administration.

They did not comment after Judge Watson’s decision Thursday night, but their only immediate option is to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit. They cannot appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is currently scheduled to hear the federal government’s appeal of Hawaii v. Trump after its annual session begins in October.</s>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to block a judge’s ruling that prevented President Donald Trump’s travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies.

FILE PHOTO: International passengers embrace family members as they arrive at Washington Dulles International Airport after the Trump administration's travel ban was allowed back into effect pending further judicial review, in Dulles, Virginia, U.S., June 29, 2017. REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan

In a court filing, the administration asked the justices to overturn Thursday’s decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration’s temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

The latest round in the fight over Trump’s March 6 executive order, which he says is needed for national security reasons, came after the Supreme Court intervened last month to partially revive the two bans, which were blocked by lower courts.

The Supreme Court said then that the ban could take effect, but that people with a “bona fide relationship” to a U.S. person or entity could not be barred.

The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted. He ruled for the state late on Thursday.

In the court filing, the Justice Department said the judge’s ruling “empties the (Supreme) Court’s decision of meaning, as it encompasses not just “close” family members but virtually all family members.

The conservative-leaning Supreme Court is not currently in session but the justices can handle emergency requests. The administration’s application could be directed either to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has responsibility for emergency requests from western states, or to the nine justices as a whole. If the court as a whole is asked to weigh in, five votes are needed to grant such a request.

“The truth here is that the government’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s stay order defies common sense,” said Omar Jadwat, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union involved in challenging the ban. “That’s what the district court correctly found and the attorney general’s misleading attacks on its decision can’t change that fact.”

In his decision, Watson harshly criticized the government’s definition of close family relations as “the antithesis of common sense.”

Watson also ruled that the assurance by a resettlement agency to provide basic services to a newly arrived refugee constitutes an adequate connection to the United States because it is a sufficiently formal and documented agreement that triggers responsibilities and compensation.

In the court filing, the Justice Department said Watson’s ruling on refugees would make the Supreme Court’s decision on that part of the executive order “effectively meaningless.”

The ruling, if left in place, means refugees can continue to be resettled in the United States, beyond a cap of 50,000 set by the executive order. That limit was reached this week.

The Supreme Court’s decision last month revived parts of Trump’s March 6 executive order banning travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as refugees for 120 days. The court also agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall over whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution.</s>WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Friday that the Justice Department will ask the Supreme Court to block a judge's ruling that prevented President Donald Trump's travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies.

Sessions said in a statement that the administration would "reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court" in a bid to overturn Thursday's decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration's temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries. The Justice Department could file papers with the high court as soon as Friday.

"By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the executive branch in a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the executive branch and the directive of the Supreme Court," Sessions Said.

The Supreme Court last month said the ban could take effect, but that people with a "bona fide relationship" to a U.S. person or entity could not be barred.

The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted.

"The truth here is that the government´s interpretation of the Supreme Court´s stay order defies common sense," said Omar Jadwat, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union involved in challenging the ban. "That´s what the district court correctly found, and the attorney general´s misleading attacks on its decision can´t change that fact."

The conservative-leaning Supreme Court is not currently in session, but the justices can handle emergency requests. The administration's application could be directed either to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has responsibility for emergency requests from western states, or to the nine justices as a whole. If the court as a whole is asked to weigh in, five votes are needed to grant such a request.

Separately, the Justice Department filed papers in Hawaii federal court saying it would appeal Watson's ruling to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That would give the government a second route to the Supreme Court.

Earlier on Friday, White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert told reporters that the ruling appeared to be "fairly broad and something that would trouble me if it was as broad as reported."

Bossert, speaking aboard Air Force One as the president returned from a trip to Paris, focused his remarks on the part of the ruling that would allow more refugees to enter the country, saying the ruling could be interpreted as "so expansive as to cover every refugee."

In his decision, Watson harshly criticized the government's definition of close family relations as "the antithesis of common sense."

Watson also ruled that the assurance by a resettlement agency to provide basic services to a newly arrived refugee constitutes an adequate connection to the United States because it is a sufficiently formal and documented agreement that triggers responsibilities and compensation.

The ruling, if left in place, means refugees can continue to be resettled in the United States, beyond a cap of 50,000 set by the executive order. That limit was reached this week.

The Supreme Court's decision last month revived parts of Trump's March 6 executive order banning travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as refugees for 120 days. The court also agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall over whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe, Yeganeh Torbati and Dan Levine; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)</s>The U.S. Supreme Court is on something of a summer vacation. But the ongoing legal battle over President Trump’s travel ban is taking no time off. A federal district court in Hawaii ruled Thursday night that a category of travelers previously blocked by the directive can now enter the United States: the grandparents and other close family members of U.S. residents coming from countries listed under the ban. In doing so, the court rejected the administration’s narrow view of a Supreme Court decision last month and reopened entry for thousands more potential visa applicants. Judge Derrick Watson wrote that the government’s exclusion of grandparents in particular was “the antithesis of common sense.” The high court had said anyone with a “bona fide relationship” to someone living in the United States could enter despite the ban, which the Trump administration took to mean parents, spouses, children, and other “close familial relationships.” At the same time, the administration explicitly said grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, and siblings-in-law would be excluded. The state of Hawaii filed motions challenging that determination in court, arguing the justices’ order should be interpreted broadly. In his ruling on Thursday, Watson agreed. “Had the Supreme Court intended to protect only immediate family members and parents-in-law, surely it could have said so,” he wrote. “It did not.”

Watson also rejected the government’s criteria for admitting refugees into the United States. The Court said in June that only a refugee with a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. refugee agency would qualify for entry under the ban. In the State Department’s interpretation, this meant a documented relationship between a private resettlement agency and a specific refugee. But Watson sided with Hawaii’s challenge and ruled that assurances made between an agency on a refugee’s behalf and the State Department itself would qualify. “An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court’s touchstones,” Watson wrote. “It is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades. “Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that,” he added. The ban, which temporarily bars entry for most visa applicants from six Muslim-majority countries and for many refugees worldwide, has spent most of the last six months suppressed by injunctions from multiple federal appeals courts. The Trump administration has defended its order as a vital step for national security, while critics have charged that it amounts to the unconstitutional ban on Muslims that Trump once pledged to impose during the campaign.

After two federal appeals courts ruled against the second iteration of the ban in May and June, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The Court said on the last day of its term last month that it would hear two lawsuits challenging it, Hawaii v. Trump and International Refugee Assistance Program v. Trump, later this year when the justices return from summer recess. Until then, they unanimously lifted part of the lower court injunctions to allow the ban to go into partial effect. “In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the Court said in an unsigned order on behalf of the justices, referring to the provision ordering the visa-application freeze. “All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the second version of the executive order].” Only the Supreme Court can modify its own order, but lower courts have some discretion in interpreting its scope and application. That gave Watson the authority to determine how far the Court’s exemptions from the ban would extend. “What is clear from the Supreme Court’s decision is that this Court’s analysis is to be guided by consideration of whether foreign nationals have a requisite ‘connection’ or ‘tie’ to this country,” Watson wrote. “Put another way, context matters.” The organizations challenging the travel ban in court praised his ruling. “While a partial ban remains in effect as a result of last month’s Supreme Court ruling, this decision limits its application to ensure that fewer refugees, families, and loved ones are discriminated against based solely on their religion or country of origin,” Karen Tumlin, the National Immigration Law Center’s legal director, said in a statement. The Justice Department has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has handed the Trump administration multiple defeats on its ban over the past six months.</s>U.S. lays out criteria for visa applicants from six Muslim nations





Visa applicants from six Muslim-majority countries must have a close U.S. family relationship or formal ties to a U.S. entity to be admitted to the United States under guidance distributed by the U.S. State Department on Wednesday.



Here is the text of the cable:







Date:

June 28, 2017 at 7:57:39 PM EDT



Subject: (SBU) IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13780 FOLLOWING SUPREME COURT

RULING -- GUIDANCE TO VISA-ADJUDICATING POSTS







From: SECSTATE WASHDC



Action: ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE











1. (SBU) Summary: On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court partially

lifted preliminary injunctions that barred the Department from enforcing

section 2 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13780, which suspends the entry to the

United States of, and the issuance of visas to, nationals of six designated

countries, as well as section 6, which relates to the Refugee Admissions

Program. A June 14, 2017 Presidential Memorandum announced each enjoined

provision would become effective the date and time at which the referenced

injunctions are lifted or stayed, with implementation of each relevant

provision within 72 hours after

all applicable injunctions are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision.

As a result, implementation of those sections for which injunctions have been

lifted will begin June 29, 2017,

as detailed below.







2. (SBU) This cable provides guidance for implementing provisions of

section 2(c) of the E.O. impacting visa adjudication and issuance

procedures. The E.O.’s 90-day suspension of entry will be implemented

worldwide at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) June 29, 2017. All visa

adjudicating posts should carefully review and prepare to implement this

guidance at that time or at opening of the next business day if not open at 8:00 p.m. EDT June 29, 2017. Any

modifications to this guidance, due to litigation or other reasons, will be

sent in a subsequent cable. Public talking points and additional

operational resources will be updated and available on CA Webhttp://intranet.ca.state.sbu/content/caweb/visas/news/100011.html>.

End Summary.







3. (SBU) The Supreme Court’s partial lifting of the preliminary

injunctions allows the E.O.’s suspension to be enforced only against foreign

nationals who lack a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the

United States.” Therefore, applicants who are nationals of the affected

countries who are determined to be otherwise eligible for visas and to have a

credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the

United States are exempt from the suspension of entry in the United States as

described in section 2(c) of the E.O. Applicants who are nationals of the

affected countries and who are determined to be otherwise eligible for visas,

but who are determined not to have a qualifying relationship, must be eligible

for an exemption or waiver as described in section 3 of the E.O. in order to be

issued a visa. For adjudication purposes, the Supreme Court criteria have

been couched in this guidance as exemptions from the E.O.’s suspension of entry

in paragraph 10.







(SBU) Suspension of Entry into the United States for Aliens from Certain

Countries







4. (SBU) The E.O. exercises the President’s authority under sections

212(f) and 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and suspends

for 90 days entry into the United States of, and issuance of visas to, certain

aliens from the following countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria,

and Yemen. Implementation of the suspension, for purposes of visa

issuance, will begin at 8:00 p.m. EDTJune

29, 2017, worldwide. The suspension of entry in the E.O.

does not apply to individuals who are inside the United States on June 29, 2017, who have a valid

visa on June 29, 2017,

or who had a valid visa at 8:00 p.m. EDT January 29, 2017, even after their

visas expire or they leave the United States. The suspension of entry

also does not apply to other categories of individuals, as detailed

below. No visas will be revoked based on the E.O., even if issued during

the period in which Section 2(c) was enjoined by court order or during the

72-hour implementation period. New applicants will be reviewed on a

case-by-case basis, with consular officers taking into account the scope and

exemption provisions in the E.O. and the applicant’s qualification for a

discretionary waiver. Direction and guidance to resume normal processing

of visas following the 90-day suspension will be sent septel.







(SBU) Nonimmigrant Visas







5. (SBU) GSS vendors and posts will continue scheduling NIV applicants of

the six indicated nationalities. The E.O. provides for a number of

exemptions from its scope and includes waiver provisions, and whether an

applicant is exempt or qualified for a waiver can only be determined on a

case-by-case basis during the course of a visa interview.







6. (SBU) Beginning 8:00 p.m. EDT June 29, 2017, NIV applicants

presenting passports from any of the six countries included in the E.O. should

be interviewed and adjudicated following these procedures:







a.) Officers should first determine whether the applicant is eligible for a

visa under the INA, without regard to the E.O. If the applicant is not

eligible, the appropriate refusal code should be entered into the Consular

Lookout and Support System (CLASS). See 9 FAM 303.3-4(A). Posts

must follow existing FAM guidance in 9 FAM 304.2 to determine whether an SAO

must be submitted. Applicants found ineligible for grounds unrelated to

the E.O. should be refused according to standard procedures.







b.) If an applicant is found otherwise eligible for the visa, the consular

officer will need to determine during the interview whether the applicant is

exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of entry provision (see paragraphs 10-13),

and if not, whether the individual qualifies for a waiver (see paragraphs 14

and 15).







c.) Applicants who are not exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of entry provision

and who do not qualify for a waiver should be refused by entering the code

“EO17” into the Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS). As

coordinated with DHS, this code represents a Section 212(f) denial under the

E.O.







(SBU) Immigrant Visas







7. (SBU) The National Visa Center (NVC) will continue to schedule

immigrant visa (IV) appointments for all categories and all

nationalities. Posts should continue to interview all other IV applicants

presenting passports from any of the six countries included in the E.O.,

following these procedures:







a.) Officers should first determine whether the applicant is eligible for the

visa, without regard to the E.O. If the applicant is not eligible, the

application should be refused according to standard procedures.







b.) If an applicant is found otherwise eligible for the visa, the consular

officer will need to determine during the interview whether the applicant is

exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of entry provision (see paragraphs 10-13),

and if not, whether the applicant qualifies for a waiver (paragraphs 14 and

15).







c.) Immigrant visa applicants who are not exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of

entry provision and who do not qualify for a waiver should be refused 221(g)

and the consular officer should request an advisory opinion from VO/L/A.







(SBU) Diversity Visas







8. (SBU) For Diversity Visa (DV) applicants already scheduled for

interviews falling after the E.O. implementation date of 8:00 p.m. EDTJune

29, 2017, post should interview the applicants. Posts

should interview applicants following these procedures:







a.) Officers should first determine whether the applicant is eligible for the

DV, without regard to the E.O. If the applicant is not eligible, the

application should be refused according to standard procedures.







b.) If an applicant is found otherwise eligible, the consular officer will need

to determine during the interview whether the applicant is exempt from the

E.O.’s suspension of entry provision (see paragraphs 10-13), and if not,

whether the applicant qualifies for a waiver (paragraphs 14 and 15).







c.) DV applicants who are not exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of entry

provision and who do not qualify for a waiver should be refused 221(g) and the

consular officer should request an advisory opinion from VO/L/A following

current guidance in 9 FAM 304.3-1.







Based on the Department’s experience with the DV program, we anticipate that

very few DV applicants are likely to be exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of

entry or to qualify for a waiver. CA will notify DV applicants from the

affected nationalities with scheduled interviews of the additional criteria to

allow the potential applicants to determine whether they wish to pursue their

application.







9. (SBU) The Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) will continue to schedule

additional DV-2017 appointments for cases in which the principal applicant is

from one of these six nationalities. While the Department is mindful of

the requirement to issue Diversity Visas prior to the end of the Fiscal

Year on September 30, direction and

guidance to resume normal processing of visas following the 90-day suspension

will be sent septel.







(SBU) Individuals Who Are Exempt from the E.O.’s Suspension of Entry







10. (SBU) The E.O.’s suspension of entry does not apply to the following:











a.) Any applicant who has a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a

person or entity in the United States. Any such relationship with a

“person” must be a close familial relationship, as defined below. Any

relationship with an entity must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary

course, rather than for the purpose of evading the E.O. Note: If

you determine an applicant has established eligibility for a nonimmigrant visa

in a classification other than a B, C-1, D, I, or K visa, then the applicant is

exempt from the E.O., as their bona fide relationship to a person or entity is

inherent in the visa classification. Eligible derivatives of these

classifications are also exempt. Likewise, if you determine an applicant

has established eligibility for an immigrant visa in the following classifications

-- immediate relatives, family-based, and employment-based (other than certain

self-petitioning employment-based first preference applicants with no job offer

in the United States and SIV applicants under INA 101a(27)) -- then the

applicant and any eligible derivatives are exempt from the E.O.





b.) Any applicant who was in the United States on June 26, 2017;





c.) Any applicant who had a valid visa at 5:00 p.m. EST on January 27, 2017, the day

E.O. 13769 was signed;





d.) Any applicant who had a valid visa on June 29, 2017;





e.) Any lawful permanent resident of the United States;





f.) Any applicant who is admitted to or paroled into the United States on or

after June 26, 2017;





g.) Any applicant who has a document other than a visa, valid on June 29, 2017, or issued

on any date thereafter, that permits him or her to travel to the United States

and seek entry or admission, such as advance parole;





h.) Any dual national of a country designated under the order when traveling on

a passport issued by a non-designated country;





i.) Any applicant travelling on an A-1, A-2, NATO-1 through NATO-6 visa, C-2

for travel to the United Nations, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa, or a

diplomatic-type visa of any classification;





j.) Any applicant who has been granted asylum; any refugee who has already been

admitted to the United States; or any individual who has been granted

withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention

Against Torture; and





k.) Any V92 or V93 applicant.





11. (SBU) “Close family” is defined as a parent (including

parent-in-law), spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law,

daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half. This includes step

relationships. “Close family” does not include grandparents,

grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and

sisters-in-law, fiancés, and any other “extended” family members.







12. (SBU) A relationship with a “U.S. entity” must be formal, documented,

and formed in the ordinary course rather than for the purpose of evading the

E.O. A consular officer should not issue a visa unless the officer is

satisfied that the applicant’s relationship complies with these requirements

and was not formed for the purpose of evading the E.O. For example, an

eligible I visa applicant employed by foreign media that has a news office

based in the United States would be covered by this exemption. Students

from designated countries who have been admitted to U.S. educational

institutions have a required relationship with an entity in the United

States. Similarly, a worker who accepted an offer of employment from a

company in the United States or a lecturer invited to address an audience in

the United States would be exempt. In contrast, the exemption would not

apply to an applicant who enters into a relationship simply to avoid the

E.O.: for example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may

not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client

lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their inclusion in

the E.O. Also, a hotel reservation, whether or not paid, would not

constitute a bona fide relationship with an entity in the United States.







13. (SBU) When issuing an IV or an NIV to an individual who falls into

one of the categories listed in paragraph 10, the visa should be annotated to

state, “Exempt or Waived from E.O. 13780.” Interviewing officers must

also enter a clear case note stating the specific reason why the applicant is

exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of entry. If consular officers are

unclear if an applicant qualifies for an exemption, the cases should be refused

under INA 221(g) and the consular officer should request an advisory opinion

from VO/L/A following current guidance in 9 FAM 304.3-1.







(SBU) Qualification for a Waiver and Process







14. (SBU) The E.O. permits consular officers to grant waivers and

authorize the issuance of a visa on a case-by-case basis when the applicant

demonstrates to the officer’s satisfaction that the following three criteria

are all met:







a.) Denying entry during the 90-day suspension would cause undue hardship;







b.) His or her entry would not pose a threat to national security; and







c.) His or her entry would be in the national interest.







15. (SBU) The E.O. lists the following examples of circumstances in which

an applicant may be considered for a waiver, subject to meeting the three

requirements above. Note that some of the waiver examples listed in the

E.O. are now considered exemptions in light of the Supreme Court’s

ruling. Consular officers should determine whether individuals are exempt

from the E.O. under standards described above, before considering the

availability of a waiver under the standards described in this paragraph.

Unless the adjudicating consular officer has particular concerns about a case

that causes the officer to believe that that issuance may not be in the

national interest, a determination that a case falls under any circumstance

listed in this paragraph is a sufficient basis for concluding a waiver is in

the national interest. Determining that a case falls under some of these

circumstances may also be a sufficient basis for concluding that denying entry

during the 90-day suspension would cause undue hardship:







a.) The applicant has previously established significant contacts with the

United States but is outside the United States on the effective date of the

E.O. for work, study, or other lawful activity;







b.) The applicant seeks to enter the United States for significant business or

professional obligations and the denial of entry during the suspension period

would impair those obligations;







c.) The applicant is an infant, a young child, or adoptee, an individual

needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by

the special circumstances of the case;







d.) The applicant is traveling for purposes related to an international

organization designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act,

traveling for purposes of conducting meetings or business with the United

States government, or traveling to conduct business on behalf of an

international organization not designated under the IOIA; or







e.) The applicant is a permanent resident of Canada who applies for a visa at a

location within Canada.







16. (SBU) Listed in this paragraph are other circumstances in which an

applicant may be considered for a waiver, subject to meeting the three

requirements in paragraph 14. Consular officers should determine whether

individuals are exempt from the E.O. under standards described above, before

considering the availability of a waiver under the standards in paragraph



15. Unless the adjudicating consular officer has particular concerns

about a case that suggest issuance may not be in the national interest, determining

that a case falls under any circumstance listed in this paragraph is a

sufficient basis for concluding a waiver is in the national interest.

Determining that a case falls under some of these circumstances may also be a

sufficient basis for concluding that denying entry during the 90-day suspension

would cause undue hardship:







a.) The applicant is a high-level government official traveling on official

business who is not eligible for the diplomatic visa normally accorded to

foreign officials of national governments (A or G visa). Examples include

governors and other appropriate members of sub-national (state/local/regional)

governments; and members of sub-national and regional security forces; and







b.) Cases where all three criteria in paragraph 14 are met and the Chief

of Mission or Assistant Secretary of a Bureau supports the waiver.







17. (SBU) If the applicant qualifies for a waiver based on criteria in

paragraphs 14 or 15, the consular officer may issue the visa with the

concurrence of the Visa Chief (IV or NIV) or the Consular Section Chief.

The visa should be annotated to read, “Exempt or Waived from E.O. 13780.”

Case notes must reflect the basis for the waiver; the undue hardship that would

be caused by denying entry during the suspension; the national interest; and

the position title of the manager concurring with the waiver. To document

national interest in case notes in circumstances falling under paragraph 14 or

paragraph 15(a), (b), or (c), the consular officer may write, “National

interest was established by the applicant demonstrating satisfaction of the

requirements for the waiver based on [insert brief description of category of

waiver].”







18. (SBU) If the applicant does not qualify under one of the listed

waiver categories in paragraphs 14 or 15, but the interviewing officer and

consular manager believe that the applicant meets the requirements in paragraph

14 above and therefore should qualify for a waiver, then the case should be

submitted to the Visa Office for consideration. These cases should be

submitted via email to countries-of-concern-inquiries@state.gov.

The Visa Office will review these requests and reply to posts within two

business days. Consular officers should be able to approve the majority

of waiver cases without review by the Visa Office due to the broad authority

granted in the E.O.







(SBU) Refugees







19. (SBU) The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) is suspended for

120 days, except for those cases where the Supreme Court has kept the temporary

injunction in place for any applicant who has a credible claim of a bona fide

relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Any such

relationship with a “person” must be a close familial relationship, as defined

above in paragraph 11. Any relationship with an entity must be formal,

documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of

evading the E.O as described in paragraph 12. We believe that by their

nature, almost all V93 cases will have a clear and credible close familial

relationship with the Form I-730 petitioner in the United States and qualify

for issuance under this exemption.







20. (SBU) Posts should not cancel any V93 appointments, and NVC will

continue to schedule new V93 appointment as normal. Beginning 8:00 p.m. EDT Thursday June 29, 2017, V93

applicants presenting passports from any of the six countries included in the

E.O. should be interviewed and adjudicated following these procedures:







a.) Officers should first determine whether the applicant is eligible for a V93

under the current policy, without regard to the E.O. If the applicant is

not eligible, the appropriate refusal code should be entered into the Consular

Lookout and Support System (CLASS). Applicants found ineligible for

grounds unrelated to the E.O. should be refused according to standard

procedures. See 9 FAM 203.6.







b.) If an applicant is found otherwise eligible for the V93 foil, the consular

officer will need to determine during the interview whether the applicant is

exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of entry provision based on a credible claim

of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States per

paragraph 19.







c.) Applicants who are not exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of entry provision

should be refused by entering the code “EO17” into the Consular Lookout and

Support System (CLASS). Please contact your VO/F liaison with any

questions about V93 processing or adjudication under the E.O.







(SBU) V92 Cases







21. (SBU) The E.O. does not affect V92 applicants, and post should

adjudicate these cases per standard guidance.







22. (SBU) Posts with questions regarding this guidance should contact

their post liaison officer in CA/VO/F.





</s>U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Friday that the Justice Department will ask the Supreme Court to block a judge’s ruling that prevented President Donald Trump’s travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies.

Sessions said in a statement that the administration would “reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court” in a bid to overturn Thursday’s decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration’s temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

“By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the executive branch in a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the executive branch and the directive of the Supreme Court,” Sessions Said.

The Supreme Court last month said the ban could take effect, but that people with a “bona fide relationship” to a U.S. person or entity could not be barred.

The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted.

The conservative-leaning Supreme Court is not currently in session, but the justices can handle emergency requests. The administration’s application could be directed either to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has responsibility for emergency requests from western states, or to the nine justices as a whole. If the court as a whole is asked to weigh in, five votes are needed to grant such a request.

Separately, the Justice Department filed papers in Hawaii federal court saying it would appeal Watson’s ruling to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It was not immediately clear whether that is a separate appeal.

Earlier on Friday, White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert told reporters that the ruling appeared to be “fairly broad and something that would trouble me if it was as broad as reported.”

Bossert, speaking aboard Air Force One as the president returned from a trip to Paris, focused his remarks on the part of the ruling that would allow more refugees to enter the country, saying the ruling could be interpreted as “so expansive as to cover every refugee.”

In his decision, Watson harshly criticized the government’s definition of close family relations as “the antithesis of common sense.”

Watson also ruled that the assurance by a resettlement agency to provide basic services to a newly arrived refugee constitutes an adequate connection to the United States because it is a sufficiently formal and documented agreement that triggers responsibilities and compensation.

The ruling, if left in place, means refugees can continue to be resettled in the United States, beyond a cap of 50,000 set by the executive order. That limit was reached this week.

The Supreme Court’s decision last month revived parts of Trump’s March 6 executive order banning travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as refugees for 120 days. The court also agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall over whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution.</s>HONOLULU (CN) — The state of Hawaii is again urging a federal judge to clarify his block of President Trump’s travel ban.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in March stalled enforcement of the travel ban – which restricted immigration from six Muslim-majority nations – but he declined to clarify his ruling last week. He said that the matter turned on the Supreme Court’s use of the term “close family” in a preliminary ruling two weeks ago to determine who should be eligible to enter the country now that the high court has issued a temporary stay on enforcing certain portions of the travel ban block.

Upon appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Judge Watson may indeed enforce or modify his own injunction.

Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg disagreed, arguing in court documents filed in the District of Hawaii Tuesday that the court lacks enforcement or modification authority. Rosenberg also elaborated on the Trump administration’s definition of “close family,” leaning on a formulation in the Immigration and Nationality Act that focuses on the children, spouses and parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin responded in a brief filed Wednesday that Hawaii is only following the “precise roadmap” laid out by the Ninth Circuit, while “the government tries every possible avenue” to defy the Supreme Court’s directive that anyone with a “bona fide relationship” to this country cannot be denied entry.

Chin continued, “The Government has spent two weeks carrying out its unconstitutional order against the vulnerable and the weak.” Chin’s brief cites a Ukrainian granddaughter attempting to reunite with her 93-year-old grandmother, a refugee stranded in Malawi while his uncle waits for him here, and “countless individuals” promised resettlement by a dedicated refugee organization.

Rosenberg countered that an assurance from a refugee resettlement agency does not constitute a bona fide relationship and that resettlement is contingent upon a contract between the agency and the government. According to Rosenberg, Hawaii’s “blanket approach” to admitting refugees would eviscerate the Supreme Court’s stay.

Rosenberg may be conflating the portion of Watson’s injunction that protects refugees, which the Supreme Court left intact, with the injunction against the 120-day ban on immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries, which the Supreme Court overturned.

Rosenberg continued, “Plaintiffs would have the court modify its injunction by adding requirements that, at best, appear nowhere in the Supreme Court’s opinion.”

Chin accused the government of manufacturing ad hoc rules, including its “newly minted rationalization” relying on immigration laws to establish a strict definition of “family.”

Such guidelines, Chin said, would preclude plaintiff Ismael Elshikh’s mother-in-law from coming into the country, for example, even though the Supreme Court ruling granted her protection. “It defies credulity that this is what the Supreme Court had in mind when it mentioned Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law,” Chin wrote.</s>Lawyers for the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to let the government use the list it compiled in late June for deciding who can apply for a visa under the limited enforcement of the president's executive order on travel.

Only the Supreme Court "can definitively settle whether the government's reasonable implementation" of the justices' earlier ruling is faithful to it, Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing late Friday.

A federal judge in Hawaii ruled Thursday that grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, and siblings-in-law must be added to the list of close family members who can still get visas to travel to the United States during the 90 days while the executive order is in force.

The State Department said on June 29 that only parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children, and children-in-law would be exempt from the ban on visas for travel to the United States from six predominantly Muslim countries.

It acted after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 26 that while portions of the travel ban could be enforced, people overseas "who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship" with a relative or organization in the United States would be exempt.

Responding to a motion by the state of Hawaii to broaden the exceptions, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson said the State Department's definition of close family member "represents the antithesis of common sense." Grandparents, he said "are the epitome of close family members" and past Supreme Court decisions have defined the term much more broadly.

Watson also said the government wrongly determined that refugees would be subject to the ban even if they have an agreement with an American resettlement organization. Such an arrangement "is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding," he wrote. "Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that," he added.

But in asking the Supreme Court to put that ruling on hold, the Justice Department said Friday that the Hawaii judge's interpretation "encompasses not just close family members but virtually all family members" and reads the term "close" out of the Supreme Court's late June decision.

As for the refugee provision, the Justice Department said the only contract agreement is between the resettlement agency and the federal government, not between the agency and the refugee. Reading the ruling as the Hawaii judge does strips the Supreme Court's decision of any practical consequence, the administration lawyers said.

Watson declined to put his own ruling on hold while the Trump administration sought an appeal, but the government asked the Supreme Court to block it in order to prevent "needless uncertainty" about the executive order's enforcement until the justices can resolve the issues.

The Supreme Court will probably ask the Hawaii challengers to respond before deciding what to do.</s>The Trump administration is seeking to close a legal window opened for tens of thousands of refugees to enter the United States, appealing a federal judge's order directly to the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson had ordered the government to allow in refugees formally working with a resettlement agency in the United States. His order also vastly expanded the list of U.S. family relationships that refugees and visitors from six Muslim-majority countries can use to get into the country, including grandparents and grandchildren.

In its appeal Friday night, the Justice Department said Watson's interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling on what family relationships qualify refugees and visitors from the six Muslim-majority countries to enter the U.S. "empties the court's decision of meaning, as it encompasses not just 'close' family members, but virtually all family members. Treating all of these relationships as 'close familial relationship(s)' reads the term 'close' out of the Court's decision."

Only the Supreme Court can decide these issues surrounding the travel ban, the Justice Department said. "Only this Court can definitively settle whether the government's reasonable implementation is consistent with this Court's stay," it said.

On Saturday, the U.S. Justice Department asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to put Watson's ruling on hold while the Supreme Court considers its appeal.

The long, tangled legal fight is expected to culminate with arguments before the nation's high court in October.

Watson's ruling could help more than 24,000 refugees already vetted and approved by the United States but barred by the 120-day freeze on refugee admissions, said Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, a resettlement agency.

"Many of them had already sold all of their belongings to start their new lives in safety," she said. "This decision gives back hope to so many who would otherwise be stranded indefinitely."

Citing a need to review its vetting process to ensure national security, the administration capped refugee admissions at 50,000 for the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, a ceiling it hit this week.

The federal budget can accommodate up to 75,000 refugees, but admissions have slowed under Trump, and the government could hold them to a trickle, resettlement agencies say.

"Absolutely this is good news for refugees, but there's a lot of uncertainty," said Melanie Nezer, spokeswoman for HIAS, a resettlement agency. "It's really going to depend on how the administration reacts to this."

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had said the administration would ask the Supreme Court to weigh in, bypassing the San Francisco-based 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals, which has ruled against it in the case.

The Supreme Court allowed a scaled-back version of the travel ban to take effect last month.

"Once again, we are faced with a situation in which a single federal district court has undertaken by a nationwide injunction to micromanage decisions of the co-equal executive branch related to our national security," Sessions said. "By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the executive branch in a time of grave threats."

The administration took a first step by filing a notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit, allowing it to use a rule to petition the high court directly. There was no timetable for the Supreme Court to act, but the administration sought quick action to clarify the court's June opinion.

The justices now are scattered during their summer recess, so any short-term action would come in written filings.

The administration has lost most legal challenges on the travel ban, which applies to citizens of Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen.

The Supreme Court's ruling exempted a large swath of refugees and travelers with a "bona fide relationship" with a person or an entity in the U.S. The justices did not define those relationships but said they could include a close relative, a job offer or admission to a college or university.

The Trump administration defined the relationships as people who had a parent, spouse, fiance, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the U.S.

Watson enlarged that group to include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin, who sought the broader definition, said Thursday's ruling "makes clear that the U.S. government may not ignore the scope of the partial travel ban as it sees fit."

"Family members have been separated and real people have suffered enough," Chin said.

Spagat reported from San Diego. Associated Press writers Julie Watson in San Diego, Jennifer Sinco Kelleher in Honolulu, Sudhin Thanawala in San Francisco and Sadie Gurman and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.</s>WASHINGTON — It didn't take long for the Supreme Court's decision on President Trump's travel ban to reach the ... Supreme Court.

But the latest battle isn't over whether travelers from predominantly Muslim nations can be barred from entering the United States, or which countries are included. It's about picking and choosing who can get in and who must stay out.

The Justice Department asked a federal appeals court Saturday to block a federal district judge's ruling Thursday allowing more immigrants and refugees into the country.

By changing the government's interpretation of the Supreme Court's June 26 decision, which partially restored the travel ban after a series of lower court defeats, the department argued that the latest order invites "precisely the type of uncertainty and confusion that the government has worked diligently to prevent."

The administration also asked the Supreme Court late Friday to clarify its June ruling by allowing the more stringent requirements on travelers that the government had imposed. The justices gave lawyers for Hawaii, which initiated the challenge, until Tuesday to respond.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had predicted this next round of court battles when the high court partially restored the controversial travel ban after a series of lower court decisions against it. The justices said only immigrants and refugees with a "bona fide" connection to the U.S. can be exempt.

"The compromise ... will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved," Thomas wrote.

Federal district court Judge Derrick Watson ruled Thursday that the Trump administration was "unduly restrictive" in implementing the ban by allowing only spouses, children, parents, siblings, fiancés and in-laws. Watson opened the door to grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins and siblings-in-law.

And while the administration decided only refugees already in contact with resettlement agencies could enter, Watson's ruling would allow for more.

That led the Justice Department to ask Friday night for the Supreme Court's "immediate intervention" in the case, just 18 days after it blocked lower court rulings that put the travel ban on hold.

"Only this court can definitively settle whether the government's reasonable implementation is consistent with this court's stay," the government argued in seeking to have the June 26 decision clarified.

The court also had accepted the case for a more complete oral argument in the fall, in order to decide whether it violates the Constitution's protection of religion by targeting Muslims. That case, however, could become moot if the administration concludes its vetting procedures this summer.

Watson's ruling on travelers from six countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — "empties the court's decision of meaning, as it encompasses not just close family members, but virtually all family members," the government said in seeking the justices' intervention.

The judge's ruling on refugees, the administration argued, would apply to "every refugee permitted to enter the United States."

Lawyers for Hawaii, which along with immigration rights groups had stymied Trump's efforts in courts across the nation, have until Tuesday to respond to the administration's request.

strike down Watson's ruling or temporarily block it from increasing the flow of immigrants and refugees while it's appealed.

Trump's order calls for a 90-day ban on entry to the U.S. from the six countries and a 120-day ban on admitting all refugees, in order to give the administration time to improve screening efforts to ensure terrorists do not sneak into the country.

Watson's latest interpretation was being reviewed Friday by the State Department, which said it would would work with Justice Department lawyers to ensure "immediate implementation."

Watson's ruling comes in the same week the U.S. admitted its 50,000th refugee for the 2017 fiscal year, reaching the annual cap established by Trump that is down from the 110,000 limit established by President Obama in his final year in office.

That means the administration will stop accepting new refugees for the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The only exceptions will be those with close family relationships as defined by the Supreme Court.
The Trump Administration asks the U.S. Supreme Court to stop implementation of yesterday's ruling by Hawaii District Judge Derrick Watson that expanded the State Department's definition of "close family" used to implement the Supreme Court's June order that permits admission to the U.S. of those with a bona fide relationship.