Attorney identifies University of Iowa international students in lawsuit to keep case alive

IOWA CITY — A day after a federal judge told an attorney representing four University of Iowa international students to identify themselves or drop a complaint against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the attorney filed a document with the court swapping the John Doe #1-#4 labels with the real names of the men she’s representing.

The Gazette in the early stages of the case is not publishing the names of the men, who have expressed concern about potential ramifications of having their identities known.

In seeking court approval for use of pseudonyms, an attorney for the students said they “have substantial reasons to fear disclosure out of concern for arrest, detention, and removal.”

Attorney Katherine Melloy Goettel — a UI College of Law professor specializing in immigration, most recently serving as senior legal director for the American Immigration Council — argued the public also has an interest in keeping the names confidential, along with an “atypically weak” case for making them public.

“Plaintiffs fear enforcement from the Department of Homeland Security by way of arrest, detention, and removal,” Goettel wrote. “They are under immense stress, which is affecting each of their daily lives, and they are concerned about sensitive, personal information being disclosed to the public.”

U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger on Monday denied the students’ motion to continue their case under pseudonyms — giving them until 5 p.m. Tuesday to update the complaint with their true names.

Ebinger did, however, grant the students’ motion to extend a temporary restraining order against the DHS termination of their status in the Student and Exchange Visitor System — known as SEVIS.

In an order she issued last month, Ebinger told DHS not to terminate the students’ status again “absent a valid ground” and without a proper proceeding at which they could review and respond to evidence.

In response to government threats of deportation against the students, Ebinger ordered DHS not to arrest, detain, or transfer them — or order them arrested, detained, or transferred — “without first providing adequate notice to both this Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel as well as time to contest any such action.”

To be sure, she told DHS not to even initiate removal proceedings on the basis of the previous status terminations.

The original complaint challenging DHS’ termination of the student statuses — and the government’s subsequent response — give the following information about each:

In the original complaint, Goettel said nonimmigrant students on F-1 visas can stay for the duration of their SEVIS status if they comply with visa requirements — like remaining engaged in a full course of study and avoiding unauthorized employment.

F-1 students can’t provide false information to DHS or be convicted of a crime of violence carrying a potential sentence of more than a year. And in the complaint, Goettel notes repeatedly that these students’ offenses were not violent crimes punishable by more than a year in prison.

“The unlawful termination of Doe #4’s SEVIS record and status has put his own career and ability to continue studying and working in the United States at risk,” according to the complaint. “Further, his data analysis efforts, which aimed to prevent future drug-related deaths across the state, have come to a halt.”

‘At best speculative’

In responding to the UI students’ lawsuit filed April 21, a team of U.S. attorneys on May 2 rebuffed the allegation that status termination in SEVIS amounted to termination of F-1 status.

“A SEVIS record does not necessarily indicate a termination of nonimmigrant status,” according to the government response, characterizing the changes as “simply data entry actions.”

“(The students’) suggestion that a SEVIS termination puts them out of status is mistaken,” according to the government. “(The students) do not need injunctive relief from this court for additional protection.”

Given the court’s injunction, in part, was based on her finding of the likelihood for “irreparable harm,” the U.S. attorneys reported changes in the SEVIS database do not risk someone “accruing unlawful presence.”

And even if it did, they argued, “The Supreme Court has held in other immigration contexts that claims related to the possibility of removal proceedings do not constitute irreparable injury.”

In the students’ original lawsuit they reported receiving letters from U.S. embassies following their SEVIS terminations that warned, “Remaining in the United States can result in fines, detention, and/or deportation’.”

Those messages also advised, “Deportation can take place at a time that does not allow the person being deported to secure possessions or conclude affairs in the United States” and that, “Persons being deported may be sent to countries other than their countries of origin.”

But in the government’s May 2 response, they noted the students have not received notices to appear in immigration court — and so their “claims that they may be detained and placed in immigration proceedings is at best speculative at this time.”

The attorneys also attacked any assertion the students risked losing all the time, energy, and money they’ve put toward attaining UI degrees.

If anyone risks irreparable harm, according to the U.S. attorneys, it's the government — which is being kept from exercising its statutory right to amend the SEVIS database.

“Congress has provided the Secretary of Homeland Security significant authority to administer and enforce U.S. immigration laws, including those governing the conditions of admission of foreign students.”

‘End-run around the regulations’

Assertions made throughout the government response — and in the days since the lawsuit was filed — raise more questions than they answer, according to immigration attorney Goettel.

“They appear to argue that terminating a student’s SEVIS record has no legal effect, and that stripping (them) of SEVIS status was a mere ‘data entry action’ with no impact on the students,” she wrote in a reply. “That is incorrect. Termination of a SEVIS record results in the immediate loss of employment, the risk of detention and removal, the inability to adjust to other immigration statuses, the inability to transfer schools, and the overall interruption in the student’s studies.”

Plus, she said, the government keeps changing the rules — citing recent testimony about a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement “student criminal alien initiative” that charged employees to spend several weeks “combing the records of 1.3 million student visa holders to determine whether they have had any criminal history or even minor interaction with law enforcement.”

She also referenced a new ICE policy issued April 26 listing additional grounds for SEVIS termination to include visa revocation, which is relevant to three of the UI students who had visas revoked after their SEVIS terminations.

The government actions and policy changes are an attempt to “subvert” their own regulations, “which do not list visa revocation as a valid reason to terminate status,” Goettel said, reporting that authority to revoke a visa lies with the State Department.

Although terminating a record in SEVIS does not effectuate visa revocation, ICE sent information about thousands of students — including the UI students — to the State Department “presumably for visa revocation.”

“In response, (the State Department) instructed ICE to terminate those students’ SEVIS records,” Goettel said. “ICE’s subsequent policy that visa revocations are a ground for both SEVIS termination and removal shows that the (government is) trying to make an end-run around the regulations; actions that could well result in (the students’) ultimate deportation.”

Rejecting the notion the students don’t face irreparable harm, Goettel pointed to the “many serious consequences would befall (her clients) if ICE were to again terminate their SEVIS status.”

“SEVIS termination could result in (the students’) inability to complete their academic program, losing years of full-time work, facing diminished career prospects, and suffering reputational harm.”

Vanessa Miller covers higher education for The Gazette.

Comments: (319) 339-3158; vanessa.miller@thegazette.com