WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Hawaii has expanded the list of family relationships with U.S. citizens that visa applicants can use to get into the U.S.

The current rules aren’t so much an outright ban as a tightening of already-tough visa policies affecting citizens from six Muslim-majority countries: Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen.

People from those countries who already have visas will be allowed into the country.

Only narrow categories of people, including those with relatives named in Thursday’s ruling, will be considered for new visas.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson on Thursday ordered the government not to enforce the ban on grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.

“Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,” Watson said in his ruling. “Indeed grandparents are the epitome of close family members.”

Watson also ruled that the government may not exclude refugees who have formal assurance and promise of placement services from a resettlement agency in the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which last month allowed a scaled-back version of the ban to go into effect before it hears the case in October, exempted visa applicants from the ban if they can prove a “bona fide” relationship with a U.S. citizen or entity.

The Trump administration defined “bona fide” relationship as those who had a parent, spouse, fiance, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the U.S.

The case came back to Watson when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he had the authority to interpret the Supreme Court’s order and block any violation of it.

Watson’s Thursday ruling broadened the definition of what counts as a “bona fide” relationship to include grandparents and the rest of the wider list of relatives.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin, who represents the state as the plaintiff in the case said the court made 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 in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruled that workers who accepted jobs from American companies, students who enrolled at a U.S. university or lecturers invited to address a U.S. audience would also be exempt.

A relationship created for purposes of avoiding the travel ban would not be acceptable, the justices said.

President Trump proposed a blanket ban during his campaign, but limited it to a handful of countries when he issued his initial travel ban in January, promoting it as a necessary tool for national security and fighting terrorism.

It set off massive protests at airports around the country and immediately sparked a sprawling, ongoing legal fight.

Courts blocked that first ban as well as a second the Trump administration had retooled, until the Supreme Court partially reinstated it at the end of June.

It’s unclear how significantly the new rules have affected or will affect travel.

In most of the countries singled out, few people have the means for leisure travel.

Those that do already face intensive screenings before being issued visas.</s>Judge Derrick K. Watson of the Federal District Court in Honolulu — who was one of two judges who issued a ruling last March blocking sections of President Trump’s March 6 executive order that banned travel to the United States by foreign nationals from six countries identified as being state sponsors of terrorism — is at it again. On July 13, Watson imposed his own interpretation of the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling that allowed the travel ban to go into effect, exempting only one category of foreigners from the travel ban, those “with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

However, the court left “bona fide relationship” open to interpretation. The Trump administration interpreted that exemption as applying only to immediate family members such as a parent, spouse, fiancé, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or sibling. However, in his latest ruling, Watson decided to expand the exemption considerably, to include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of people already in this country.

In his ruling, Watson touted the superiority of his own definition above that of the Trump administration, asserting: “The Government’s definition represents the antithesis of common sense. 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.” (Emphasis in original.)

Hawaii’s Attorney General Douglas Chin issued a statement about Watson’s ruling: “The federal court today 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. Courts have found that this Executive Order has no basis in stopping terrorism and is just a pretext for illegal and unconstitutional discrimination. We will continue preparing for arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in October.”

This was Watson’s second ruling aimed at the Trump travel ban. Last March, just hours before an amended version of the ban was scheduled to take effect, he granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the Trump administration executive branch from enforcing or implementing two key sections of the March 6 executive order across the nation.

The New York Times reported Watson’s written statement at the time asserting that a “reasonable, objective observer” would view even the new order as “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.”

Trump’s March 6 order that Watson stopped had dropped some language that had been included in the original January 27 travel ban order — language that made exceptions for persecuted religious minorities, including Christians. This well-intentioned item was misconstrued by critics (including a Seattle judge who ruled against it on February 3) as being “anti-Muslim,” so it was removed from the second order.

Despite this change, both Watson and U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in Maryland (who were both appointed by former president Obama) made numerous reference to Trump’s alleged anti-Muslim bias in their respective decisions to block the order.

The administration appealed these judges’ decisions to the Supreme Court, which as mentioned previously, granted most of the administration’s emergency request to put the travel ban into place.

During a press gaggle aboard Air Force One on July 14 conducted by Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert, a reporter asked if the administration had any response to Watson’s ruling and if it raised any concerns as far as security enforcement.

Bossert replied that he did not know of any formal administration response, and although he had not read the entire ruling, he did have concerns based on early reports. He said:

So I would say that, as it was reported to me, it seemed to be fairly broad and something that would trouble me if it was as broad as reported. In terms of a connection with any group, any refugee organization, it might be read, if the early reports that I looked at were accurate, as something so expansive as to cover every refugee. And that certainly couldn’t be the interpretation the Supreme Court intended.

When the report asked Bossert if there had been steps taken to design and implement extreme vetting procedures for admitting aliens, he answered:

There's a number of efforts ongoing to implement the president's executive order, especially now that it is been freed from legal constraint by the Supreme Court. The question you asked is about vetting. Of course, we’re improving … our policies and our capabilities to better vet people seeking entry into the United States.

Image of court: Screenshot of District Court of Hawaii website

Supreme Court Allows Most of Trump Travel Ban to Proceed, Will Hear Case in Fall

Trump's DOJ Submitted “Watered Down” Version of His Travel Ban to Supreme Court

Federal Judges Again Block Trump Travel Ban From Nations With Terrorist Ties

Judge Grants Stay to Bar Trump DHS From Deporting Aliens From Seven Nations of Concern

Trump Executive Order to Ban Nationals of “Countries of Particular Concern”</s>(HONOLULU) — A federal judge in Hawaii has expanded the Trump administration's list of family relationships needed by people seeking new visas from six mostly Muslim countries to avoid a travel ban.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson ruled Thursday that the travel ban exemptions should include grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts and other relatives.

The U.S. Supreme Court last month exempted visa applicants from the ban if they can prove a "bona fide" relationship with a U.S. citizen or entity.

President Donald Trump's administration said a bona fide relationship would be a parent, spouse, fiance, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the U.S.

Watson says grandparents are the "epitome" of close family members.</s>Attorney General Jeff Sessions vowed Friday to appeal a federal judge's ruling late Thursday that the Trump administration’s implementation of its travel ban impacting citizens of six Muslim-majority nations is “unduly restrictive,” and that the government’s definition of “close familial relationship” contradicts the Supreme Court order that exempted visa applicants who could establish a “bona fide” relationship with citizens or entities of the United States.

U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson of Hawaii, who in March was the first to issue a nationwide injunction against the second iteration of the travel ban, rebuked the administration’s position that created a narrow list of “family relations that it claims satisfies” the standards laid out by the Supreme Court.

The administration’s interpretation, Watson wrote, "represents the antithesis of common sense."

In a statement Friday, Sessions expressed disappointment at the decision, invoking the administration's partial success in overturning Watson's earlier ruling on the ban.

"The Supreme Court has had to correct this lower court once, and we will now reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the Executive Branch's duty to protect the nation," said Sessions.

The impact of the court decision

Judge Watson’s order means that the administration must now significantly expand the list of family relationships that would allow visa applicants to get around the travel ban.

Following the Supreme Court decision in June, the government had provided guidance to U.S. consular officials worldwide, with a list of exemptions that included only parents, parents-in-law, spouses, children, fiancé/ées, adult sons and daughters, sons- and daughters-in-law, siblings and step-relationships.

The State of Hawaii challenged that interpretation as too narrow - and Judge Watson agreed - entering a revised preliminary injunction that prohibits the administration from applying the travel ban to aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, grandchildren and grandparents.

“Common sense,” Watson wrote, “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.”

Critics of the administration’s policy, which some had derisively dubbed a “Grandma Ban,” hailed Watson’s decision.

“The federal district court clarified for the country what almost every grandchild, niece, and extended family member has long known: that grandmothers, aunts and other family members are invaluable members of our families and communities, and should be treated as such,” wrote Karen Tumlin, the Legal Director of the National Immigration Law Center in a statement.

Watson also ruled that the government cannot exclude would-be refugees who have assurances from a resettlement agency within the United States, even if their admission would result in exceeding the 50,000 annual cap of refugees outlined in the executive order.

What happens next

In advance of Watson’s ruling, the Trump administration indicated that it may challenge any order that went against them. The Department of Justice asked the judge, if he ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, to hold enforcing it in order to avoid “significant confusion as the government continues to implement the Executive Order consistent with court orders.”

Watson declined to hold off on his decision, so the order was effective immediately.

Sessions' announcement Friday that the Justice Department will go directly to the Supreme Court will likely come in the form of a request for clarification of its order on the travel ban, as was outlined in court filings last week.</s>In a victory for challengers of the Trump administration’s travel ban, a federal court judge late Thursday agreed once again to partially halt the ban of certain foreign nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries on a nationwide basis — a direct rebuke to the government’s attempt to limit the close family members allowed in the US.

Most specifically, Thursday’s decision means that “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States” will now count as sufficiently close family relationships to gain entry into the country.

The Supreme Court ruled late last month that the administration could employ the travel ban against foreign nationals who lack any “bona fide” relationship to a person or entity in the US, but the state of Hawaii said the administration had wrongfully interpreted that to exclude close family, such as grandparents.

The countries affected are Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

US District Court Judge Derrick Watson — who originally blocked the travel ban back in March — said the Trump administration’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision defied common sense.

“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. “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 further agreed with Hawaii that a refugee resettlement agency’s “formal assurance” to a refugee seeking admission to the US counts as a sufficiently bona fide relationship as well.

“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 explained. “Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that.”

The Trump administration must now appeal this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in order to get Watson’s order lifted, or appeal directly to the Supreme Court.</s>In another setback for President Donald Trump, a federal judge in Hawaii has further weakened his already diluted travel ban by vastly expanding the list of family relationships with U.S. citizens that visa applicants can use to get into the U.S.

The ruling is the latest piece of pushback in the fierce fight set off by the ban Trump first attempted in January. It will culminate with arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in October.

The current rules aren't so much an outright ban as a tightening of already-tough visa policies affecting citizens from six Muslim-majority countries: Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen. People from those countries who already have visas will be allowed into the country. Only narrow categories of people, including those with relatives named in Thursday's ruling, will be considered for new visas.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson on Thursday ordered the government not to enforce the ban on grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.

"Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents," Watson said in his ruling. "Indeed grandparents are the epitome of close family members."

Watson also ruled that the government may not exclude refugees who have formal assurance and promise of placement services from a resettlement agency in the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which last month allowed a scaled-back version of the ban to go into effect before it hears the case in October, exempted visa applicants from the ban if they can prove a "bona fide" relationship with a U.S. citizen or entity.

The Trump administration defined "bona fide" relationship as those who had a parent, spouse, fiance, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the U.S.

The case came back to Watson when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he had the authority to interpret the Supreme Court's order and block any violation of it.

Watson's Thursday ruling broadened the definition of what counts as a "bona fide" relationship to include grandparents and the rest of the wider list of relatives.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin, who represents the state as the plaintiff in the case said the court made 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 in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruled that workers who accepted jobs from American companies, students who enrolled at a U.S. university or lecturers invited to address a U.S. audience would also be exempt.

A relationship created for purposes of avoiding the travel ban would not be acceptable, the justices said.

Trump proposed a blanket ban on Muslims during his campaign, but limited it to a handful of countries when he issued his initial travel ban in January, promoting it as a necessary tool for national security and fighting terrorism.

It set off massive protests at airports around the country and immediately sparked a sprawling, ongoing legal fight.

Courts blocked that first ban as well as a second the Trump administration had retooled, until the Supreme Court partially reinstated it at the end of June.

It's unclear how significantly the new rules have affected or will affect travel. In most of the countries singled out, few people have the means for leisure travel. Those that do already face intensive screenings before being issued visas.</s>Hawaii Judge Exempts Grandparents And Other Relatives From Trump Travel Ban

A federal judge in Hawaii has put new limits on the Trump administration's travel ban on people from six mostly Muslim countries, allowing travel for grandparents, grandchildren, and other family members of people in the United States.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson's order Thursday prevents the administration from enforcing the travel ban against grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins.

In his ruling, Watson took aim at how the administration defines a close familial relationship, writing, "[T]he Government's definition represents the antithesis of common sense. 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."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the ban on people seeking to travel to the United States from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen may not be enforced against those who have a "bona fide relationship" to people in the United States. The Trump administration said that would include parents, spouses, fiances, sons, daughters, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law or siblings.

Thursday's ruling came in response to the state of Hawaii's request for an injunction against the Trump administration's enforcement of the ban on expanded family members.

In a statement, Hawaii's Attorney General Douglas Chin said, "The federal court today 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. Courts have found that this Executive Order has no basis in stopping terrorism and is just a pretext for illegal and unconstitutional discrimination. We will continue preparing for arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in October."

As of early Friday, the Justice Department had not commented on the ruling.</s>Hawaii federal judge rules more family members are exempt from travel ban pic.twitter.com/n5kjLVyUxH

Once again, activist judge trying to set national policy. He’s expanding it not just to grandparents but to aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, in-laws and “anyone invited in by a charity,” according to Fox. That basically would eviscerate the ban.

A federal judge in Hawaii on Thursday expanded the list of “bona fide” family relationships needed by people seeking new visas from six majority Muslim countries to avoid President Trump’s travel ban.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson ordered the U.S. not to enforce the travel ban on grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the U.S.

“Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,” Watson said in his ruling. “Indeed grandparents are the epitome of close family members.”

The travel ban affects those trying to enter the U.S. from Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen.</s>HONOLULU (AP) — In another setback for President Donald Trump, a federal judge in Hawaii has further weakened his already diluted travel ban by vastly expanding the list of family relationships with U.S. citizens that visa applicants can use to get into the U.S.

The ruling is the latest piece of pushback in the fierce fight set off by the ban Trump first attempted in January. It will culminate with arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in October.

The current rules aren’t so much an outright ban as a tightening of already-tough visa policies affecting citizens from six Muslim-majority countries: Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen. People from those countries who already have visas will be allowed into the country. Only narrow categories of people, including those with relatives named in Thursday’s ruling, will be considered for new visas.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson on Thursday ordered the government not to enforce the ban on grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.

“Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,” Watson said in his ruling. “Indeed grandparents are the epitome of close family members.”

Watson also ruled that the government may not exclude refugees who have formal assurance and promise of placement services from a resettlement agency in the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which last month allowed a scaled-back version of the ban to go into effect before it hears the case in October, exempted visa applicants from the ban if they can prove a “bona fide” relationship with a U.S. citizen or entity.

The Trump administration defined “bona fide” relationship as those who had a parent, spouse, fiance, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the U.S.

The case came back to Watson when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he had the authority to interpret the Supreme Court’s order and block any violation of it.

Watson’s Thursday ruling broadened the definition of what counts as a “bona fide” relationship to include grandparents and the rest of the wider list of relatives.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin, who represents the state as the plaintiff in the case said the court made 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 in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruled that workers who accepted jobs from American companies, students who enrolled at a U.S. university or lecturers invited to address a U.S. audience would also be exempt.

A relationship created for purposes of avoiding the travel ban would not be acceptable, the justices said.

Trump proposed a blanket ban on Muslims during his campaign, but limited it to a handful of countries when he issued his initial travel ban in January, promoting it as a necessary tool for national security and fighting terrorism.

It set off massive protests at airports around the country and immediately sparked a sprawling, ongoing legal fight.

Courts blocked that first ban as well as a second the Trump administration had retooled, until the Supreme Court partially reinstated it at the end of June.

It’s unclear how significantly the new rules have affected or will affect travel. In most of the countries singled out, few people have the means for leisure travel. Those that do already face intensive screenings before being issued visas.

Associated Press writer Andrew Dalton contributed to this story from Los Angeles.</s>A court decision on President Donald Trump’s travel ban has reopened a window to tens of thousands of refugees to enter the United States and the government is looking to quickly close it with an appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — A court decision on President Donald Trump’s travel ban has reopened a window to tens of thousands of refugees to enter the United States and the government is looking to quickly close it.

The administration said Friday that it would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal judge in Hawaii ordered it to allow in refugees formally working with a resettlement agency in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson 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.

The ruling Thursday was the latest twist in a long, tangled legal fight that will culminate with arguments before the nation’s high court in October.

It could help more than 24,000 refugees who had already been vetted and approved by the United States but would have been 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 said the administration will 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 justices 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’s no timetable for the Supreme Court to act, but the administration will be seeking quick action that clarifies the court’s June opinion.

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

The administration has lost most legal action on the travel ban that applying to citizens of Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen, severely blunting its impact.

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 didn’t define that connection but said it could include a close relative, a job offer or admission to a college or university.

The Trump administration defined the relationship as those 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.
Hawaii District Judge Derrick Watson extends the definition of "close family members" to include grandparents, aunts, and uncles, thereby exempting them from President Donald Trump's travel ban on six Muslim-majority nations.