Last week, President Trump announced a new travel ban on foreign nationals from 19 different countries. Here, we’ll look at the effects of the ban, with a particular focus on asylum seekers and asylees.
According to the White House proclamation, twelve countries are subject to a complete suspension of immigrant and non-immigrant visas: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Seven more countries are subject to a partial ban, which affects mainly tourists (B-2 visas), business visitors (B-1 visas), and students (F, M, and J visas): Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. In addition, “in light of recent events” (a reference to the attack on a pro-Israel march by an Egyptian national in Colorado), the government will review “the practices and procedures of Egypt to confirm the adequacy of its current screening and vetting capabilities.”
The ban applies to foreign nationals of the designated countries who are outside the United States and who do not have a valid visa on the effective date of the proclamation (June 9, 2025). So if you received a visa prior to June 9, you should be able to enter the U.S.
Some categories of people from the banned countries are exempt from the ban and are still able to come to the U.S. These include (1) lawful permanent residents (Green Card holders), (2) dual nationals who enter the U.S. using a passport issued by a non-banned country, (3) certain diplomats, (4) athletes and their entourage coming to the country for the World Cup, the Olympics, or other major sporting event, (5) immediate family members (i.e., parents, spouses or minor unmarried children of U.S. citizens) who are immigrating to the United States, as long as they have “clear and convincing evidence of identity and family relationship (e.g., DNA),” (6) adoptions, (7) Special Immigrant Visa holders from Afghanistan, (8) certain government employees, and (9) “immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran.”
There are also exceptions for humanitarian immigrants—
This proclamation shall not apply to an individual who has been granted asylum by the United States, to a refugee who has already been admitted to the United States, or to an individual granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of [sic] Punishment (CAT). Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT, consistent with the laws of the United States.
(emphasis added). I suppose this is good news, or at least, it makes the bad news less bad. It means that asylees and refugees can travel and return to the U.S., though they would need a Refugee Travel Document.
It is a bit odd that the proclamation also exempts people granted Withholding of Removal or CAT, since they are always ineligible to travel and return to the U.S. If they leave, they are not coming back, ban or no ban.
The quoted language also makes clear that the ban does not affect people in the U.S. who are seeking asylum, Withholding of Removal or CAT.
It’s less clear whether the ban affects people seeking refugee status, as those people are outside the U.S. However, since our refugee program seems to have been killed (except for a few lucky Afrikaners), this concern is probably moot.
What about family members of asylees and refugees who are outside the United States and seek to join their relative in the U.S. (using form I-730)? The Trump Administration previously attempted to ban I-730 beneficiaries of refugees (as opposed to asylees), but that ban was blocked by a court order. We will have to see how the current ban is applied to I-730 beneficiaries of asylees.
What about Advance Parole (AP), which allows people with a pending case to return to the U.S. after overseas travel? While people with AP have generally been able to return to the U.S., the current proclamation provides no guidance about this, and so again, I think we will have to wait to see how the rule is implemented. Until we have more clarity, if you are from a banned country, it is probably a bad idea to leave the U.S., even if you have AP.
The main effect of this ban—aside from further isolating our county and indulging our xenophobia—will be to block visitors, workers, students, and some immigrants from the targeted countries. We will see how it works in practice, but based on my reading, I think (and hope) the ban will have a fairly limited impact. That’s cold comfort for those who are affected, and we must all keep working to reverse this ban and protect innocent immigrants from further harm.
Hi jason do you know why work permit cases are taking so long? I got mine but my husband did not.
I don’t know, but it is common to see renewals take different periods of time – sometimes, they are fast; other times, they are slow. It seems arbitrary to me, but the whole system is a disaster and so such delays are not surprising. We are not seeing people being denied, and so hopefully, he will get the card soon. Take care, Jason
Jason i applied for work permit with my husband and I.
I got my card his case is still pending.
He has got his approval even ( standalone approval)
Do we need to be worried. Why is it taking so long we are worried becoz of all that is going around us.
Please help.
I am not sure what you mean when you say he got his stand alone approval. However ,if he got a receipt and if he filed before his old card expired, he automatically gets the card extended by 540 days, and he can use that to work or get a driver’s license (at least he should be able to get a license – some DMVs are more difficult). It is common to see family members apply at the same time and get a decision at different times, and so that is not really a worry, unless maybe he has a criminal issue that could effect eligibility for the card. Otherwise, as long as he has the receipt, he should hopefully receive the card soon. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I have an RTD and a green card. I’m from a country with a partial ban. I’m planning to travel to Canada in two weeks. Do you think it is safe for me to travel or do you think it’s too risky? I’m confused and unsure at this point.
Thank you!
According to the language of the ban, it should be safe, as the partial ban countries only block non-immigrants on certain types of visas (B, F, M, and J visas, I think). You can keep an eye on the news to see if any people from your country are having trouble, but as I understand the ban, it should be ok. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason
Is it safe for LPR with RTD to travel abroad to a neutral country these days if their original country is Muslim majority but not on travel ban list?
If you have a valid RTD, you should be able to travel and return to the US. I have not heard about people in this situation having problems. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
My asylum case is closed administratively because of I have TPS too should I need to renew my TPS after it end. What is your advice?
If TPS still exists and you want to have that status, you can renew. If you prefer to continue the court case, you can ask the judge to put your case back on the calendar. DHS is moving closed cases back onto the calendar, and so your case may get scheduled whether you take ny action or not. Take care, Jason
Thank you for all the info. Can you please let us know when you hear more regarding I-730 Asylee FTJ?
If I have news, I will try to post it, but I imagine it will also be posted elsewhere. So far, I have not heard anything. Take care, Jason
Russia and China committed many human rights abuses and are undermining America. Why shouldn’t they be banned ? I feel that a lot of times, the govt only bans those small countries, doesn’t seem to have a big effect one way or another.
Or Saudi Arabia since most of the 9-11 hijackers were from that country. The choice of countries to ban has always been political. Take care, Jason
I feel that people like to say something as ironic as it is as if it’s some kind of excuse to legitimize the thing as it is aka status quo and invalidate my criticism.
If it’s political, then it’s not right and something should be done so that more countries who should be banned are banned.
Personally, I do not think any countries should be banned. Maybe nationals from some countries should receive extra scrutiny, but to blanket ban everyone from a country seems way too broad. We gain great benefits from being part of the wider world, though we are rapidly losing those benefits based on false claims and fear-mongering. Take care, Jason