Category: trump

Attorney Ahmad Yakzan

I Told You So!! Judge Limits Trump’s Travel Ban, Again!

I wrote a post when the Supreme Court ruled on Trump’s travel ban arguing that the decision was more expansive than the Administration’s interpretation. I also said that there will be more litigation to clarify who is encompassed within the “bona fide relationship” language the Supreme Court used. Yesterday, a federal judge in Hawaii agreed with my interpretation of the decision. The judge expanded the definition to encompass more family members than included in the Administration’s definition, which was limited to parents, in-laws, and siblings.

Advocates suing the Administration over the ban asked the judge to expound on the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision, and to clarify the “bona fide relationship” language in the decision. The judge previously refused to grant that request, but yesterday, he did.

The Judge ruled that the Administration’s interpretation is antithetical, ruling that such interpretation was erroneous. The judge reasoned that such interpretation does not comport to the Supreme Court ruling, since grandparents, in-laws, siblings, uncles and their children meet the close familial relationship encompassed in the Supreme Court’s decision.

The judge also agreed with my interpretation of the decision, where I argued that a simple promise of refugee status is enough to make refugees exempt from the ban. The Administration disagreed with the Plaintiffs’ argument, which simply out says that any refugee who has had the necessary background checks , medical tests, and has received a contract for resettlement is included within the scope of “bona fide” relationships. The Administration argued that individual refugees did not directly receive such commitment and that should bring out of the scope of the decision. The judge disagreed, saying that going through all these steps shows a bona fide relationship. He added that “[b]ona fide does not get more bona fide as that”.

This is yet another blow to the Administration’s travel ban. The think there will be more litigation about this ban, especially when I know that the “bona fide relationship” language in the Supreme Court’s decision was vague.

Please let me know your thoughts. To read the decision, click here.

Refugee Crisis Ahmad Yakzan

Trump Tells the World to Covfefe Itself: What Does Pulling Out of Paris Mean to Refugees ?

I am watching the President make one of the worst decisions that he has ever made; pulling out of the Paris Agreement puts it at bar with Syria and Nicaragua (which has not signed because it does not go far enough).

The Paris Agreement has been signed by almost every country in the world to safeguard our future. It sets goals for countries to meet to decrease the number of pollutants in the air to deal with global warming. Experts believe that global warming will lead to an international refugee crisis because people in low-lying countries will be forced to migrate from their countries to others.

The problem is that international refugee law, as it stands now, does not offer protections for environmental refugees. To qualify for asylum as a refugee, a person must meet the persecution bar under one of six protected grounds, which do not include environmental refugees. I was recently a speaker at a panel discussing the issue at Stetson University College of Law.  There are discussions to amend the Refugee Convention to allow victims of climate change to apply for refugee protections if they were truly subjected to persecution based on environmental issues. Applicants would be able to claim that they were persecuted by their government by the latter’s failure to protect the environment to protect them. This change would be cataclysmic and would be a major change in refugee law.

I think the decision was erroneous for many reasons. We are the world’s only remaining superpower and with us pulling out of the agreement, other countries will follow suit. International law is customary in nature, and such action will undoubtedly lead to major changes. It is enough for the United States not to sign the International Criminal Court’s treaty for many countries to refuse to ratify the convention. On a side note, this will be an issue in the 2018 election.

I am interested in your thoughts. Please comment or email me at yakzan@americandreamlawoffice.com.