As of February 2021, we are open again and accepting in-office consultations.

If you want to know more about the Biden's Proposed Immigration Reform, watch our video!

Fourth Circuit Strikes Down Trump's Travel Ban, but U.S. Supreme Court Rules Otherwise

Fourth Circuit Strikes Down Trump's Travel Ban, but U.S. Supreme Court Rules Otherwise

Back in May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit largely upheld the federal district court’s ruling blocking Trump’s revised travel ban issued via executive order on March 6, 2017. That order suspended new visas for travelers from six countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – on a 90-day temporary basis, as well as the admission of refugees from those countries. Attorney General Jeff Sessions immediately announced the federal government’s intention to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Late in June, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the travel ban case that had split the circuits and scheduled oral arguments on the case for this fall. In its ruling, the Supreme Court allowed the ban to go into effect, at least in part. More specifically, the Court permitted the ban to go into effect for any foreign nationals of the six specified nations who had no “bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.” However, the Court left the ban on hold as applied to any citizens of those countries who have credible relationships with people or entities in the U.S., such as universities or corporations. Most plaintiffs in the pending lawsuit belong to the latter group. Implementation of the ban permitted by the Supreme Court, however, has proven to be much more complicated than anticipated. The federal government immediately issued its definition of a close family relationship, which includes parents, children, spouses, and siblings, but not grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, or cousins, among others. In response, plaintiffs in the Hawaii case returned to court and sought to expand the “family relationship” definition. That case went up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who gave the district court latitude to expand the definition at issue. The district court expanded the definition to include relatives excluded by the federal government. As a result, the federal government recently asked the Supreme Court to clarify its ruling, and the Court has asked the plaintiffs to respond to the government’s motion. We are the deportation defense lawyers to whom you can turn if you or a loved one are facing deportation proceedings, no matter what the reason may be. Regardless of the complexity or difficulty of the situation, Landerholm Immigration, A.P.C. has the experience, knowledge, and skills to advocate on behalf of you and your family throughout the course of any deportation proceedings. Contact our office today and let us answer all of your questions about asylum proceedings, or any other aspect of deportation proceedings.

Contact Us Today!

Schedule a FREE Case Evaluation
    • Please enter your first name.
    • Please enter your last name.
    • Please enter your email address.
      This isn't a valid email address.
    • This isn't a valid phone number.
    • Please make a selection.
    • Please enter a message.