The Catholic University of America

Welcome to the Immigration section of our webpage. This front page will reflect our most current information on immigration law affecting educational institutions.


Dec. 4, 2017 Supreme Court Order allowing Travel Ban to proceed*

For a full summary see: 

Klasko Client Alert: Supreme Court allows  Sept. 24 Entry Restrictions to go into Effect*

For more on the legal status of pending appeals see the New York Times article by Adam Liptak titled Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect

Client Alert, Klasko Immigration Partners; Nov. 3, 2017 on the USCIS 10-23-17 Policy Memo on Deference to Prior Adjudications

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (D. Md. October 17, 2017

Memorandum and Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, consisting of twenty-three individuals and seven organizations, challenged the President's Proclamation 9645, which indefinitely barred the entry into the United States of foreign nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Venezuela, because of identified security inadequacies related to terrorism and other public-safety threats. The court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Section 2 of the Executive Order, which was the section banning foreign nationals from predominantly Muslim countries.  

Order Granting TRO, Hawaii v. Trump, Case # 17-00050, (U.S. Dis. Ct. Hawaii) 10-17-17 

This TRO prevents the administration from restricting the entry of travelers from all the predominantly Muslim countries included in the ban, so the ban only applies for now to travelers from North Korea and Venezuela. This is a nationwide TRO. The court found that the ban contained in the Executive Order issued Sept. 24, 2017 did not contrain sufficient findings that the entry of the foreign nationals from the six specified Muslim countires would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S. The ban contained a restriction on entry for an indefinite time period. At pages 230 the court noted as follows; 

First, EO-3, like its predecessor, makes “no finding that nationality alone
renders entry of this broad class of individuals a heightened security risk to the
United States.” Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 772 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
EO-3 “does not tie these nationals in any way to terrorist organizations within the six
designated countries,” find them “responsible for insecure country conditions,” or
provide “any link between an individual’s nationality and their propensity to commit
terrorism or their inherent dangerousness.

Second, EO-3 does not reveal why existing law is insufficient to address the President’s described concerns. As the Ninth Circuit previously explained with respect to EO-2, “[a]s the law stands, a visa applicant bears the burden of showing that the applicant is eligible to receive a visa . . . and is not inadmissible.”

Third, EO-3 contains internal incoherencies that markedly undermine its
stated “national security” rationale.16 Numerous countries fail to meet one or more
of the global baseline criteria described in EO-3, yet are not included in the ban.

Supreme Court Cancels Hearing on Previous Trump Travel Ban (NYTimes)

Proclamation of Sept. 24, 2017 pursuant to Section 2(e) of EO 13780 (restricting entry to nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia: See the NAFSA page for a complete summary of the indefinite entry bar. 

The September 24, 2017 effective date applies to nationals of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia who were subject to the 90-day entry ban of Executive Order 13780 who "lack credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

The October 18, 2017 effective date applies to all nationals of Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela, and to nationals of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia "who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

See also the Klasko Immigration Law Partners Client Alert (9-25-17)


Memorandum on Rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Sept. 5, 2017**

FAQ on DACA Rescission*

Press Release on Recission *

Letter from U.S. AG to DHS*

Klasko Newsletter: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to be Phased Out Beginning on March 5, 2018*

Jackson Lewis: Sept. 6, 2017 Newsletter on DACA

ACE Issue Brief Rescission of DACA*