Afghan family with U.S. visas detained on arrival in Los Angeles

[webfact]

Afghan family with U.S. visas detained on arrival in Los Angeles

By Sue Horton

REUTERS

 

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - U.S. agents detained an Afghan family of five with valid entry visas at Los Angeles International Airport and have been holding them for several days in California, according to legal papers filed in federal court by human rights lawyers.

 

The couple and their three small children were granted Special Immigrant Visas in return for work the father performed for the U.S. government in Afghanistan that put the family's lives at risk, the International Refugee Assistance Project said in its court filing seeking their release.

 

However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents detained the family shortly after their arrival at the airport on Tuesday and has held them in isolation, without access to legal counsel, according to the petition.

 

The petition, filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California, south of Los Angeles, says the family was taken into custody "with absolutely no justification whatsoever," a violation of due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.

 

"Despite repeated requests, the CBP has provided no information regarding why the family was detained, whether they have been questioned, and whether any reason at all exists to justify their continued detention," the petition states.

 

CBP declined to comment on the matter, which is set for a hearing on Monday before a federal court in Santa Ana that barred a move by the government to separate the family by sending the children and their mother, who cannot speak or read English, to Texas.

 

Immigrant advocates are increasingly concerned about tougher scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors from abroad, even those with the proper documentation, under moves by President Donald Trump to tighten immigration policies on grounds of national security.

 

The petition did not state the exact nature of the father's employment with the U.S. government in Afghanistan.

 

PROOF OF SERVICE AND SCREENING

 

But it said he qualified for a special visa under a program requiring proof of having worked for the U.S. Armed Forces or American diplomatic for at least 12 months, "as well as proof of completion of a background check and screening."

 

"It is extremely unusual if not entirely unique” for someone with this type of visa to be detained upon arrival. The visas require extreme vetting to get," said Talia Inlender, a lawyer with the legal aid group Public Counsel who is part of the family's defence team.

 

The mother was being detained in downtown Los Angeles with her children - who are 7 years, 6 years and 8 months of age - while the father was in a maximum-security detention facility in Orange County, California, Inlender told Reuters.

 

The government had intended to transfer the mother and children to Texas, but the family's lawyers persuaded a U.S. district court judge on Saturday night to intervene and stop the move.

 

The "petitioners have established at least a serious question going to the merits of their claims," Judge Josephine Staton ruled.

 

When asked to comment about the judge's order, Carl Rusnok, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an email: “ICE will fully comply with the March 4 judicial order and all other legal requirements.”

 

Trump issued a directive in January banning entry into the United States of citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries and suspending admission of all refugees for 120 days.

 

The Jan. 27 order caused chaos at airports around the world in the following days as visa holders heading to the United States were pulled off planes or turned around on arrival at U.S. airports.

 

Afghanistan was not one of the countries whose citizens were explicitly excluded in the order, which a federal court has since barred from enforcement. The Trump administration has said it plans to issue a modified order that would pass court muster.

 

(Additional reporting by Jon Herskovitz in Austin, Texas; Writing by Frank McGurty and Steve Gorman; Editing by Peter Cooney and Mary Milliken)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-06

[geriatrickid]

The problem with these reports is that there is never enough information provided.

Maybe the man is a bad man. A very bad man.

Maybe the US Immigration service are being jerks.

One never knows because the information provided is always biased, either to support detention or to criticize detention.  

 

What I do know, is that these incidents will ensure that no one will co-operate with US intelligence agencies or its military in the future. This reminds me of the fall of Vietnam when the USA abandoned many of the Vietnamese intelligence agents who had worked  at great risk for the USA, despite assurances and promises that they would be looked after. 

 

Why am I not surprised that a man who is full of hot  air about support for the US military, yet criticized Senator McCain for being a POW and who did his utmost to  avoid military service even in a non combat civilian support role (of which there were many opportunities) is responsible for a repeat of one of the worst blots on the US foreign intelligence and military's record? At least  Presidents Bush the elder,  Bush the younger, Clinton  and Obama understood the need to protect foreign assets.  The US has lost its moral compass.

 

[Scott]

If he was a bad man, it is very unlikely that he would have been granted the visa in the first place.   At every step of the journey, Homeland Security would have known of the impending arrival as the manifest is submitted prior to arrival.   If there were security hits on the guy, they could have prevented his entry.  

 

In addition to the advanced notice, his visa status would be that of a refugee and there would have been a resettlement agency awaiting the arrival of the family.   There was a long trail of paperwork, a manifest for departure and arrival and an agency tasked with picking the family up and getting them settled into an already available apartment.

 

It's not a wise idea to have him or his family given a visa if there is reason to believe they aren't eligible and it's even more unwise to allow them to reach the US and have the full guarantees of the constitution if they are not wanted.  

 

 

 

 

[anon467367354]

One has to consider who may have authorized the visa in the first place. Obama appoints Fatima Noor to special assistant in Office of Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in DHS. So America would have a Muslim with no experience  and apparently no qualifications other than a few volunteer gigs and a hijab to secure our country and screen out the bad ones??? So many that Obama has appointed have ties to radical Islam and don't need to be nor have the right to be in the US in my opinion.

I would say these people have to be vetted extra carefully because of Obama and because of where these people may have gotten their visa. The fact that they do have a visa might make them more dangerous because someone wanted to guarantee that they got in.

These people are not guaranteed legal council and neither are Americans for that matter, it's call the Patriot Act. If you want to come to America, jump through the hoops. All those that immigrate legally do.

[ujayujay]

1 hour ago, gr8fldanielle said:

One has to consider who may have authorized the visa in the first place. Obama appoints Fatima Noor to special assistant in Office of Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in DHS. So America would have a Muslim with no experience  and apparently no qualifications other than a few volunteer gigs and a hijab to secure our country and screen out the bad ones??? So many that Obama has appointed have ties to radical Islam and don't need to be nor have the right to be in the US in my opinion.

I would say these people have to be vetted extra carefully because of Obama and because of where these people may have gotten their visa. The fact that they do have a visa might make them more dangerous because someone wanted to guarantee that they got in.

These people are not guaranteed legal council and neither are Americans for that matter, it's call the Patriot Act. If you want to come to America, jump through the hoops. All those that immigrate legally do.

Absolute Rubbish

[stevenl]

One has to consider who may have authorized the visa in the first place. Obama appoints Fatima Noor to special assistant in Office of Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in DHS. So America would have a Muslim with no experience  and apparently no qualifications other than a few volunteer gigs and a hijab to secure our country and screen out the bad ones??? So many that Obama has appointed have ties to radical Islam and don't need to be nor have the right to be in the US in my opinion.
I would say these people have to be vetted extra carefully because of Obama and because of where these people may have gotten their visa. The fact that they do have a visa might make them more dangerous because someone wanted to guarantee that they got in.
These people are not guaranteed legal council and neither are Americans for that matter, it's call the Patriot Act. If you want to come to America, jump through the hoops. All those that immigrate legally do.

You missed the part where they already jumped through the hoops.

sent using Tapatalk

[Scott]

The person who grants the visa is a counsel officer at the embassy in Kabul.   It's possible it could have been granted in Pakistan, but highly unlikely.   The counsel officer has the right to reject almost anyone, for almost any reason (or no reason).   If the officer is going to approve a visa such as this, then the approval would have been reviewed by numerous people in the Embassy.   The Department of Homeland Security would have also vetted the person.   Oh, and that's screening includes all members of the family, including the children.  

 

Counsel officers have huge discretionary powers to refuse the granting of a visa and there is no appeal process.   Applicants do not any constitutional rights until they set foot on US soil.   Anyone who has attempted to get a visa for a spouse/fiance knows how difficult it can be.  

 

Nobody in Washington, D.C. can force a counsel officer to approve a visa application.   Their discretionary powers are HUGE.

 

 

[anon467367354]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

You missed the part where they already jumped through the hoops.

sent using Tapatalk
 

you missed the part about who's holding said "hoops" if at all.

[anon467367354]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

The person who grants the visa is a counsel officer at the embassy in Kabul.   It's possible it could have been granted in Pakistan, but highly unlikely.   The counsel officer has the right to reject almost anyone, for almost any reason (or no reason).   If the officer is going to approve a visa such as this, then the approval would have been reviewed by numerous people in the Embassy.   The Department of Homeland Security would have also vetted the person.   Oh, and that's screening includes all members of the family, including the children.  

 

Counsel officers have huge discretionary powers to refuse the granting of a visa and there is no appeal process.   Applicants do not any constitutional rights until they set foot on US soil.   Anyone who has attempted to get a visa for a spouse/fiance knows how difficult it can be.  

 

Nobody in Washington, D.C. can force a counsel officer to approve a visa application.   Their discretionary powers are HUGE.

 

 

you actually said this? "Nobody in Washington, D.C. can force a counsel officer to approve a visa application.   Their discretionary powers are HUGE." 

Maybe you missed this huge story on every network - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indian-athlete-who-overcame-the-travel-ban-arrested-for-sexual-abuse-in-new-york/2017/03/03

Maybe nobody but Sen. Charles E. Schumer has that force to reverse discretionary powers! Beware of "Chuckie"

[stevenl]

you missed the part about who's holding said "hoops" if at all.

Yes, you have shown a lack of knowledge but an abundance of opinion here.

sent using Tapatalk

[55Jay]

If DoD is going to route these people through for settlement visas, they ought to (at least) have a rep at the airport to meet him and the family. 

 

My wife and I got separated last time at LAX.  They were total DICKS to her.  2 hours later, she finally came down the escalator from immigration entry, in tears, said she never wanted to return to the US.  

[Scott]

1 hour ago, gr8fldanielle said:

you actually said this? "Nobody in Washington, D.C. can force a counsel officer to approve a visa application.   Their discretionary powers are HUGE." 

Maybe you missed this huge story on every network - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indian-athlete-who-overcame-the-travel-ban-arrested-for-sexual-abuse-in-new-york/2017/03/03

Maybe nobody but Sen. Charles E. Schumer has that force to reverse discretionary powers! Beware of "Chuckie"

What I said is what I meant.   Please note that the article talks about the " the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi reversed its decision", the decision was not overturned and the visa was not issued at the instruction of the senator or the mayor.   It was initially rejected and then reconsidered.  

 

I worked in the communications department for a US Embassy and one of the tasks we had was to answer congressional requests about visas.  Most counsel officers would not alter their decision because the decision was based on the evidence presented before them.   There was one case I dealt with where the White House in a letter signed by the President, requested a visa on behalf of a person.   I got the task of drafting letter explaining that the visa would not be granted.  

 

The Afghan family has been granted a visa under special circumstances and detaining them at this point is a very questionable move and potentially dangerous to the many people who work for and assist the US military overseas.