1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Supreme Court allows travel ban

The US Supreme Court partially lifted preliminary injunctions that had blocked President Trump’s revised executive order suspending US entry by foreign nationals from six, rather than the previous seven, mostly Muslim countries. However, the Court carved out an exception for foreign nationals who have a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the United States,” raising such questions as “What is a bona fide relationship?” and “What is an entity in the US?” that will likely be the subject of further court action.

Supreme Court allows travel ban

The US Supreme Court partially lifted preliminary injunctions that had blocked Executive Order No. 13780, signed by President Donald J. Trump in March 2017 (EO-2), banning travel to the US for citizens of six countries. The Supreme Court scheduled a full hearing of the case for October 2017.

“Bona fide relationship” exception

The Supreme Court found that the preliminary injunction shall remain in place and the travel ban will not impact foreign nationals who have a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” Further, refugees will continue to be allowed to enter the US, subject to the 50,000 person cap on refugee admissions, except that the cap cannot be used as a means to bar an individual with a bona fide relationship with the US.

The Supreme Court defined “bona fide relationship” as either (with respect to individuals) “a close familial relationship” or (with respect to entities), a relationship that is “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course.” What constitutes a sufficiently close familial relationship is likely to be the subject of further court action.

As for what constitutes a sufficiently established relationship with an entity, the Supreme Court provided three examples:

  • Students admitted to attend university in the US
  • Workers who have accepted an offer of employment from a US company
  • Lecturers invited to the US for a speaking engagement

The travel ban will apply to individuals whose relationship with an entity was formed to purposefully circumvent the ban.

It is worth noting that EO-2 in its original form applies only to the new issuance of visas, and not the US entry of individuals who have already been issued visas, green cards or asylum/refugee status.

Also, there is a chance that the Supreme Court will not have to hear the case in its entirety in October. If EO-2 goes into effect as scheduled by the Trump administration, the 90 day temporary ban will conclude at the end of September, several days before the Supreme Court begins its term. This would, then, remove any controversy over the legality of that piece of the order.

Citizens from these countries impacted

Citizens from the following countries are detrimentally impacted:

  • Iran
  • Libya
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Yemen

EO-2 does not apply to citizens of other countries who merely visited the listed countries. Further, it does not apply to citizens of these six countries who are dual citizens and use the passport of a non-affected country to apply for a visa and enter the US.

When does the ban start?

In a June 14 memorandum, President Trump directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State and other relevant agencies to wait 72 hours from the release of the Supreme Court decision before banning refugees and travelers from the six affected countries to “ensure an orderly and proper implementation” of the changes.

Background

During his first six months in office, President Trump signed two travel ban executive orders. The first, Executive Order 13797 (EO-1), issued on January 27, 2017, took a number of steps, including:

  • Suspending for 90 days the entry of foreign nationals from seven mostly Muslim countries identified as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel in the US [1]
  • Suspending for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), during which an adequacy review is to be undertaken
  • Reducing to 50,000 per year the total number of refugees that could be admitted to the United States, starting in fiscal year 2017
  • Suspending indefinitely admission of refugees from Syria

EO-1 was quickly blocked  by the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, which issued a nationwide temporary restraining order. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied an emergency motion by the US government to stay the district court order pending appeal. In response, the government rescinded EO-1 and went back to the drawing board.

On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed EO-2, which closely mirrored the directives in EO-1, but was intended to correct some its perceived errors, including:

  • Reducing the reach of the 90-day temporary suspension of entry to foreign nationals from six (rather than seven) mostly Muslim countries, with Iraq no longer included [2] and with a case-by-case waiver of the entry bar.
  • Directing the Secretary of DHS to undertake a 20-day global review of whether foreign governments provide sufficient information about nationals applying for visas.

EO-2 was immediately challenged in court, which challenges led to prompt nationwide preliminary injunctions by the US District Court for the District of Maryland and (as stated above) the Western District of Washington, which were then appealed to the US Courts of Appeal for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, respectively.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the EO-2 ban on entry from the six named countries was primarily motivated by religious considerations and, as such, violated the First Amendment. In that case, the preliminary injunction only applied to the suspension of entry of foreign nationals from particular countries. The 120-day ban on USRAP and the quota on total refugee immigration would still be in force.

The Ninth Circuit, meanwhile, found that EO-2 exceeded the president’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and, on that basis, upheld the injunction with regard to the entirety of EO-2.

The federal government appealed both decision to the Supreme Court, certiorari was granted, and the two cases were consolidated and oral argument scheduled for October Term 2017. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, heard the government’s application to stay the aforementioned injunctions.

Dentons will continue to issue further information as it becomes available.

[1] Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen

[2] Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen

, , , , , ,

Supreme Court allows travel ban

Criminal record check for Tier 2 UK migrants

From April 6, 2017, individuals applying to come to the UK to undertake certain jobs will be subject, along with any adult dependants (over the age of 18 years old) applying with the main applicant, to the requirement under the Immigration Rules to produce a criminal record certificate. The certificate must be produced from any country in which the applicant has been resident for 12 months or more, consecutively or cumulatively, in the previous 10 years.

Effective January 1, 2017, sponsors must inform prospective employees at the point they assign their Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) that they may become subject to this requirement by the time they make their application. This will enable them to begin seeking certificates where needed at the earliest opportunity, and to lodge a complete application for entry clearance sooner.

Affected job titles are:

  • Dental practitioners
  • Education advisers and school inspectors
  • Further education teaching professionals
  • Health professionals not elsewhere classified
  • Health services and public health managers and directors
  • Medical practitioners
  • Medical radiographers
  • Midwives
  • Nurses
  • Occupational therapists
  • Ophthalmic opticians
  • Pharmacists
  • Physiotherapists
  • Podiatrists
  • Primary and nursery education teaching professionals
  • Probation officers
  • Psychologists
  • Secondary education teaching professionals
  • Senior professionals of educational establishments
  • Social services managers and directors
  • Social workers
  • Speech and language therapists
  • Teaching and other educational professionals not elsewhere classified including Special needs education teaching professionals
  • Therapy professionals not elsewhere classified
  • Welfare professionals not elsewhere classified

The requirement to produce a criminal record certificate already applies to those applying under Tier 1 (entrepreneur) or Tier 1 (investor) and any adult dependant relative of the main applicant in either of these categories.

, , , , , , , ,

Criminal record check for Tier 2 UK migrants

Global Employment Lawyer – Volume 2, Issue 2 – Fall 2016

Brand-36-Global-Employment-Blog-Banner
What Happens If You Really “Break A Leg!?”

According to the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, “Break a leg!” is something you say to wish someone good luck, especially before they perform in the theatre. Although there are many theories, the derivation of this term is unclear. The expression reflects a theatrical superstition that wishing a person “good luck” is actually considered bad luck. But is it really bad luck if you “break a leg?”

In this month’s edition, we feature articles from eight different countries Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Israel, UK and US. As always, we thank you for you readership.

Read the complete issue

, , , , , , , ,

Global Employment Lawyer – Volume 2, Issue 2 – Fall 2016

Disclosing bribery conduct not an easy decision for US companies

White_Collar_background

July 8, 2016

Recent non-prosecution agreements between the US Securities and Exchange Commission and two companies—Akamai Technologies, Inc. and Nortek, Inc.—in matters involving FCPA books and records violations stemming from conduct that occurred in China, coupled with corresponding decisions by the US Department of Justice to close its investigations into these two matters, provide some limited insight into how to secure similar resolutions of future investigations. However, the questions that remain regarding the benefits of voluntary disclosure of an organization’s misconduct leave things clear as mud.

Should a US company faced with evidence of bribery by an employee or other agent self report in this post-Yates Memorandum/post-FCPA Pilot Program era? Read more in this client alert by Dentons white collar partners Stephen L. Hill, Michelle J. Shapiro and Brian O’Bleness.

Click to read complete article.

 

, , , ,

Disclosing bribery conduct not an easy decision for US companies

Dentons Employment and Labor seminar series

London-Wallpaper

Managing employment challenges internationally

Dentons’ global Employment and Labor group would like to invite you to our global seminar on Tuesday, June 30, 2015, hosted by our London office. Our international panel, moderated by partners Michael Bronstein (London) and Brian Cousin (New York), will cover employment law issues across a range of jurisdictions.

Our global panel will discuss:

  • Global employment law – traps for the unwary entering new markets Highlighting key issues for employers, covering:
    • US, by Sandy McCandless
    • Canada, by Lindsay Mullen
    • France, by Katell Déniel-Allioux
    • Germany, by Isabelle Moog
    • Poland, by Aleksandra Minkowicz-Flanek
    • A particular focus on China, by Anderson Zhang (大成)
  • Whistleblowing in the global workplace Examining common themes and best practices internationally:
    • UK, by Ryan Carthew
    • US, by Neil Capobianco
    • Canada, by Jillian Frank
    • France, by Katell Déniel-Allioux
    • Poland, by Aleksandra Minkowicz-Flanek.

The panel discussion will be followed by a cocktail reception.

For those unable to attend, we will be streaming a live webinar to clients and contacts in all jurisdictions.

Event schedule

4 p.m. BST Registration
4:30–6:00 p.m. BST Global employment law – traps for the unwary entering new markets Our panel will highlight key issues for employers, covering the US, Canada and various countries in Europe, as well as a particular focus on China.
6–6:15 p.m. BST Networking break
6:15–7:30 p.m. BST Whistleblowing in the global workplace – policy and practice for employers Our panel will examine common themes and best practices internationally.
7:30–8:30 p.m. BST Cocktail reception

We hope you will be able to attend.

This seminar carries 2.5 UK continuing professional development (CPD) points.

Register Now

Dentons Employment and Labor seminar series

Global Mobility Guide

 

Global Mobility Guide

We are so pleased to bring you the Dentons Global Mobility Guide 2015.

The ability to move skilled workers globally is essential to the success of the world economy and the companies that drive it.

“Global mobility” minimizes the risks for doing business internationally by providing the legal framework to identify and analyze business problems, and develop and implement creative solutions. Getting it right means getting people to the right place at the right time with the right advice.

The laws impacting global mobility are dynamic. Multinational employers need to know the existing laws and the evolving legal trends to compete in an international market where business transcends borders. Dentons professionals can provide that.

Our Global Mobility practice helps multinational employers navigate the local laws of the countries where they do business, with lawyers speaking the local language in more than 75 locations around the world, well-versed in all of the intertwined issues: immigration, employment, compensation, employee benefits, taxation and social insurance.

Dentons’ network of offices and qualified staff around the world provides you with experienced legal resources—wherever and whenever you need us.

Read the complete report

, , , , , , ,

Global Mobility Guide