Lawyers, including some with the ACLU of New Hampshire, say that a number of lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security are behind the Trump Administration’s move to reverse its stance and allow international students to get their legal status back.
In most of these cases, it appears that Homeland Security terminated the status of international students in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System without warning. The system is commonly known as SEVIS and is meant to monitor people who come to the United States for academic purposes.
“It is clear that the deluge of legal filings and initial judicial rulings in New Hampshire and nationwide have had a profound impact on the government’s decision to reactivate the SEVIS records of some students and allow them to continue their studies,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire.
The Trump administration is reversing its earlier decision and will restore the SEVIS record of about 1,200 international students around the country. Without that status, students can no longer work as research assistants or pursue their graduate work.
Inside Higher Ed has been tracking these cases nationally and estimates roughly 290 students who had their records terminated are fighting those decisions in court.
One of these students is Xiaotian Liu, a Dartmouth PhD student in computer science. During a routine check, the college found that the government terminated his SEVIS status.
A federal judge was expected to grant a Liu temporary restraining order on Friday that would allow him to continue his research while a lawsuit challenging the earlier revocation of that status plays out in court.
It is still unclear what happens next after Friday's move by the Trump administration. One of the biggest questions is the complicated relationship between SEVIS and student visa status. The two are closely related, but not the same.
In Liu’s case, lawyers for the Department of Homeland Security were not able to say in court why Liu’s record was deleted from the database, though his visa and F-1 student status are active.
According to reporting from the Boston Globe, the government attorney arguing the case said that Liu’s status wasn’t actually terminated, but that Liu could still ask the government to reinstate the status it claims is still active.
After government officials announced the reversal, the Department of Homeland Security clarified that they were not reinstating any revoked visas.
“We have not reversed course on a single visa revocation,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “What we did is restore SEVIS access for people who had not had their visa revoked.”
Bissonnette is also one of the lawyers representing Liu, alongside the firm Shaheen & Gordon. He said that they are unable to confirm Liu’s status, so the court has extended a previous temporary restraining order until Tuesday. This will allow the parties time to discuss these questions and determine whether an agreement can be reached.
Bissonnette added that many questions remain, including the criteria that will be used for these reactivations and whether this will apply to students who did not file lawsuits. For example, the ACLU filed a proposed class action lawsuit filed on behalf of students more broadly in New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico.
“In the litigation we have filed in New Hampshire, it is too soon to tell how today’s developments may or may not impact our class action lawsuit,” he said in a statement. “We will need to confirm in the coming days whether potential class members who have not sued the government have their student status fully reactivated.”
Kelli Stump, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, celebrated the change, echoing the importance of ongoing litigation. She said the agency “vexatiously overstepped” by revoking SEVIS records without the apparent vetting that is necessary.
“It’s a sad reality that this administration’s chaotic policies are the new normal,” she said. “As we move forward, it is crucial to continue to address and rectify these harms and other similar threats to ensure that such overreach does not happen again.”
