In a bold legal move, dozens of Iranian professionals seeking employment-based green cards have taken the Trump administration to court over a travel ban they claim has unjustly halted their immigration dreams.
According to Newsweek, the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accuses the administration of stalling their applications under a June 2024 presidential proclamation, despite prior approvals deeming their entry vital to U.S. interests.
The legal battle began on May 31, 2024, when 58 Iranian nationals, including pilots, medical researchers, and artificial intelligence experts, filed a lawsuit named Ariani v. Blinken. These plaintiffs, all of whom had completed consular interviews by that date, found themselves trapped in a prolonged "administrative processing" phase tied to national security vetting. Despite earlier determinations by the Department of Homeland Security that their entry served the national interest, their applications remained unresolved.
The situation worsened on June 4, 2024, when President Donald Trump issued a proclamation restricting entry from Iran and 18 other countries. This travel ban tightened vetting rules but promised exceptions for individuals whose presence benefited the national interest. However, the plaintiffs allege that no such exceptions have been granted to them, creating what they describe as an effective blanket prohibition.
Their lawsuit seeks a court order to force the State Department to review their applications despite the ban's restrictions. They argue that the delay not only disrupts their lives but also deprives the U.S. of talent in critical fields like technology and healthcare. This case is part of a wider wave of legal challenges targeting the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
Other disputes involve health coverage rules and procedural hurdles that attorneys claim infringe on legal rights or constitutional safeguards. The outcome of Ariani v. Blinken could set a precedent for numerous similar cases where immigrants assert that executive orders have unfairly blocked their path to residency. Curtis Morrison, an immigration lawyer from Red Eagle Law LC in San Diego, represents these plaintiffs and hundreds of other Iranian nationals across over 70 related lawsuits.
Morrison expressed optimism about the case, stating, "My level of confidence is high that Judge [Tanya] Chutkan will give due consideration to our request for leave to amend our complaint, as justice requires judicial oversight of executive branch policies." He further clarified the intent of the litigation, saying, "The goal of the litigation is to enjoin unlawful policies that [are] impacting my plaintiffs. It's not about getting visas recognized because no visas have been issued."
Another attorney, Garrett May, framed the struggle in historical terms, noting, "In 1776, independence was declared by those that penned their collective claim to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Today, a group of immigrant plaintiffs bear the same banner of freedom against the tyrannical immigration policies of Trump and his new travel ban."
Adding to the plaintiffs’ challenges, on June 11, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) introduced a new requirement for green card applicants. All must now submit updated medical examination forms, regardless of prior submissions, with no grace period allowed. This change could force those stuck in delays to redo exams at a cost ranging from $100 to $500 each.
A U.S. State Department spokesperson declined to comment on specifics, stating, "We also cannot preview future visa-related decisions, which are made on a case-by-case basis, based on the individual facts relevant to each case." Meanwhile, USCIS has publicly emphasized its commitment to security on social media platforms like X, formerly Twitter. On May 5, 2024, the agency posted, "Green cards and visas will be revoked if an alien breaks the law."
In another post, USCIS stated, "USCIS works alongside our @DHSgov and @StateDept partners each day to keep America, and Americans, safe. From designating foreign terrorist organizations to imposing sanctions, we're taking action to protect and secure our nation for your families, friends, and future."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also weighed in on visa policies earlier in March 2024, declaring, "If you apply for a student visa to come to the United States and you say you're coming not just to study, but to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings, and cause chaos, we're not giving you that visa." These statements reflect the administration’s broader emphasis on stringent vetting and national security.
The plaintiffs’ complaint also raises a specific legal point about the scope of the travel ban’s authority. They argue that under legal provision 212(f), the president can only restrict entry, not visa issuance, a matter Judge Tanya Chutkan previously addressed in a 2021 ruling favoring visa applicants in a case handled by Morrison. This precedent could play a significant role in the current lawsuit’s outcome.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia now holds the power to decide whether the State Department must process these stalled applications. It will also determine if the travel ban can be adjusted or overturned for national interest waivers. The ruling could ripple through the immigration system, affecting countless others facing similar obstacles under recent executive policies.