Homeland Security asks Iowa judge to drop UI international students’ lawsuit

IOWA CITY — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is seeking to dismiss a complaint four University of Iowa international students filed in April — asserting to have addressed all the students’ concerns, thus making their lawsuit “moot.”

“There is no further relief that the court can grant,” DHS asserted in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, ignoring the monetary portion of the students’ demands. “So the complaint must be dismissed.”

The UI student lawsuit was among many filed across the country in response to the government’s “Student Crime Alien Initiative,” which in March and April terminated about 3,000 students from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS.

The four UI international students — two Chinese-national undergraduates, a fourth-year doctorate student from India, and a master of public health graduate student from India — were among the thousands flagged through the initiative for having some form of criminal record. Each of the flagged UI students had non-violent offenses — including operating while intoxicated, driving without a valid license, or disorderly conduct.

Homeland Security Investigations initiated the project by first searching the National Crime Information Center for nonimmigrant students with criminal records and then referring them to the U.S. Department of State to “take action as it deemed appropriation,” according to a court declaration from Akil Baldwin, acting assistant director for the National Security Division of Homeland Security Investigations.

The State Department revoked some student visas and then turned around and asked Homeland Security Investigations to terminate the SEVIS record of any student without a valid visa. HSI opted to terminate SEVIS records for every nonimmigrant student with a record in the National Crime Information Center.

“Terminating a record in SEVIS does not terminate an alien’s nonimmigrant status in the United States,” Baldwin said in his declaration. “Terminating a record in SEVIS does not effectuate a visa revocation.”

But the UI students said they received threatening notices about their visas being revoked and their SEVIS statuses being terminated.

“Remaining in the United States can result in fines, detention, and/or deportation,” according to a message the students received about their visa revocations. “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. Persons being deported may be sent to countries other than their countries of origin.”

Through their complaint, the UI students asked a judge to intervene by filing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, restoring their SEVIS status and preventing their removal.

The students also asked the judge to “award costs and reasonable attorneys fees,” along with any other “relief the court deems just and proper.”

The judge in April granted the temporary restraining order, and in May granted the preliminary injunction — ordering the government to maintain the students’ active status in SEVIS, backdated to the date of termination; provide screenshots proving other agencies can see notations backdating the active status; and commit not to arrest, detain, or transfer the students without notifying the court and giving them time to contest the action, among other things.

In its response, DHS asked the court to alter the injunction — calling it “unnecessarily broad” and burdensome, an argument the judge rebuffed.

“The arguments lack merit,” she wrote in her July order.

In asking the court earlier this week to dismiss the case, DHS reported the students’ SEVIS records were restored to active months ago, and “there are no gaps or lapses in the SEVIS records.”

DHS also told the court, “ICE will not re-terminate an alien’s SEVIS record based solely on the (criminal) record that led to the initial termination.”

Arguing the claims are thus moot, DHS said the students’ “alleged injury stemmed from ‘the since eradicated effects of procedures and outcomes of a particular agency action’,” according to the motion to dismiss.

The judge has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss.

Vanessa Miller covers higher education for The Gazette.

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