Do you know your rights? Pars, with the support of the Santa Clara County Office of Immigrant Relations, is dedicated to informing various immigrant communities about their rights through educational programs, social media and print materials.
March 22, 2018
BEHIND THE “WAIVER” CAMOUFLAGE, A CLOSED DOOR POLICY FOR TRAVEL BAN COUNTRIES
By Sima Alizadeh
On December 8, 2017, the preliminary injunction on Presidential Proclamation 9645 (commonly known as Travel Ban 3.0) was completely lifted and Travel Ban 3.0 took full effect. The only glimmer of hope for practitioners and clients alike from the affected countries was the description of a possible waiver remedy for certain banned visa applicants from Yemen, Iran, Libya, Chad, Somalia, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela enumerated in Section 3(c) of the Proclamation.
For the last three months, practitioners like myself, who work mainly with affected nationals from Muslim-majority countries, have tried to make sense of the section 3(c) waiver, and provide counsel to thousands of affected individuals and their families. Much effort and cost has gone into navigating the waiver request process for individuals and practitioners. At our offices, Pars Equality Center, a nonprofit organization serving Iranians and other Middle Eastern groups with social and immigration legal services, we have had hundreds of individuals contact us to find out when and how to file a waiver request for their family members at various stages of the process: some in administrative processing, some taken out of administrative processing and put into a “waiver review,” some found to be ineligible for a visa under INA section 212(f) after a visa interview, and some who were preparing for a visa interview or filing documents with the National Visa Center.
The waiver process is clear as mud – the Proclamation itself states that “the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate to adopt guidance addressing the circumstances in which waivers may be appropriate.” However, guidance has not been issued, at least not publicly, and practitioners only had the three points listed in the Proclamation to work with. To be eligible for a waiver, one would need to show that: 1) denying entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship; 2) entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States; and 3) entry would be in the National Interest. Section 3(c)(iv) of the Proclamation states several examples where a grant of a waiver under 3(c) may be appropriate, which has given many practitioners (false) hope that a waiver grant in their particular cases is possible.
After months and a flurry of waiver submissions, on March 6, 2018, Reuters released data showing that waivers have rarely been granted. The data shows that from December 8, 2017 till March 6, 2018, only around 100 waivers have been granted under the proclamation, out of more than 8,400 visa applications. The number of waivers actually granted has not yet been confirmed by the Department of State (DOS), and we actually expect those numbers will be fewer than Reuters’ initial reported data.
At Pars Equality Center, we are collecting a myriad of reports on how the waiver process is being implemented by consular posts overseas. We have received reports of waiver requests being refused at visa interviews and of individuals being forced to state their requests orally, reports of no opportunities being given to submit waivers at any stage of the process, and in some cases, false assurances being made to some individuals that their cases were moving forward and would be processed soon which were later put into further “administrative processing.” All affected cases we have seen at Pars Equality Center were denied a clear and fair opportunity to submit a waiver request under the Proclamation. It was only through our proactive legal actions that we have been able to even advocate for our clients and their families and to create a record that we hope will serve them in the near future.
We have seen individuals who are at risk of losing their liberties and life in their home countries waiting to immigrate to the U.S. and live in freedom, families facing medical hardships, siblings of U.S. citizens who have waited over 14 years on the verge of a visa grant, and the simple but very noteworthy hardship of not being able to immigrate to the U.S. to be reunited with one’s spouse, child, and close family. It has been extremely discouraging knowing that this legal remedy has been useless for the many individuals who have attempted to access it and who within the Proclamation have a right to it. In a recent letter sent by DOS to Senator Van Hollen, DOS clearly states that the only guidance DOS currently has is drawn from the Proclamation itself, indicating that “The Department’s worldwide guidance to consular officers regarding waivers is drawn directly from the Proclamation.” The data released by Reutersclearly shows that the majority of individuals who may be eligible for a waiver have been denied one, and in fact, have not been able to properly submit a waiver request that is supposedly afforded to them pursuant to the very terms of the Proclamation.
This is unacceptable. Instead of making America safer, this policy is hurting our nation. We will not give up our efforts to obtain justice for our many affected clients and their families.
AILA members seeking more information can access a practice pointer on the waiver provided by the AILA Middle Eastern Interest Group.
To read the article online, please click HERE.
February 15, 2018
This morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the Travel Ban likely violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court concluded that the travel ban is “unconstitutionally tainted” with hostility towards Islam.
Although this decision does not impact the Travel Ban that is temporarily in effect, it represents a positive step towards restoring the values of religious freedom, equality, and fairness.
January 29, 2018
AILA Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Changes to the Asylum Office Affirmative Scheduling System
By AILA’s Asylum and Refugee Committee
On January 29, 2018, USCIS announced a change in scheduling procedures for affirmative asylum cases. Effective immediately, USCIS is returning to a “last in, first out” (LIFO) policy for scheduling asylum interviews. This change will have a profound effect on work flow for attorneys with a heavy asylum practice.
December 23, 2017
The District Court of Washington issued a preliminary injunction on the October 24 refugee ban (the ban is applicable to certain countries including Iran). This preliminary injunction applies only to refugees with a bona fide relationship to the U.S. Therefore, refugees from Iran can be admitted in the U.S. if they have the bona fide relationship. This will possibly change depending on higher court review very soon.
December 22, 2017
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction on Travel Ban 3.0 with regard to individuals with a bona fide relationship to the U.S. However, stayed (is not enforcing its own ruling) until the Supreme Court rules or states it will not rule. Therefore, the Travel Ban remains in full effect. The Fourth Circuit is also soon to rule.
December 4, 2017
The U.S. Supreme Court allows Travel Ban 3.0 to go into full effect, but asks the lower courts to review the cases on the full merits. The Supreme Court also indicated that it will either rule after the lower courts, or decline to review. If the Court declines to review, the lower court decisions (which will soon come down) will stand.
The ban is in full effect.
November 13, 2017
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled to allow Travel Ban 3.0 to PARTIALLY go into effect. The 3 Judge panel followed the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling earlier this summer in the IRAP case by limiting the Government's ban on travel to only those with no close relationship to the U.S.
The Panel stated in its Order:
"The injunction remains in force as to foreign nationals who have a close familial relationship...
Such persons include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins... As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [Proclamation 9645]."
To read the article, please CLICK HERE.
October 26, 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Aurora Matthews
Lawsuit Argues Trump’s Executive Order Targets Refugees from 11 Predominantly Muslim Countries, Despite Pledges to End Ban
Iranian-American organizations and individual plaintiffs file supplement to lawsuit challenging Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0
WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 26, 2017) – Three prominent Iranian-American organizations and 16 individuals have filed legal papers challenging President Trump’s October 24th Executive Order, which they argue targets refugees from Iran and 10 other African and Middle Eastern countries. The papers are a supplement to the Preliminary Injunction the groups filed earlier this month against the Trump Administration’s Travel Ban 3.0.
“Packaged as an end to the Trump Administration’s refugee ban, in fact, this Executive Order is the precise opposite: It’s a plain and insidious effort to carry out Trump’s promises for a Muslim ban, targeting refugees from 11 Middle Eastern and African countries,” said Cyrus Mehri, founding partner of Washington, DC-based firm Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, who represents the plaintiffs.
On October 24, the Trump Administration issued a new Executive Order, which it released alongside a DOS/DHS/DNI memorandum, initiating a new 90-day review period of its refugee program. During this time, according to the memo and Order, the United States will prioritize refugee applications for those who are not nationals of 11 countries.
While the Administration has not officially named the 11 countries referred to in the Memorandum, all reporting points to the fact that Iran is one of the 11 countries, and that the other countries are all in Africa and the Middle East. During these 90 days, refugees from the 11 countries will be admitted only on a “case-by-case basis” if their admission is deemed to be “in the national interest” and “pose no threat to the security or welfare of the United States.” In effect, this is a ban on refugees from Iran and the other 10 countries for the next 90 days. And because the Trump administration has determined that the United States will only admit 45,000 refugees this fiscal year, no Iranian refugees, nor any refugees from the other named countries, will be admitted to the United States for at least another full year.
The October 24 Executive Order thus denies sanctuary to three individual Plaintiffs in the lawsuit: Reza Zoghi, an Iranian political dissident who, after multiple periods of imprisonment and torture, fled Iran with his family; Jane Doe #8, a lesbian refugee who fled Iran after experiencing repeated sexual assault; and Jane Doe #9, a transgender refugee who fled Iran after experiencing sexual assault and being expelled from school.
When read in conjunction with the September 24 Proclamation as it must be, it is plain that the October 24th Executive Order is an effort to keep carrying out Trump’s promises to enact a Muslim ban.
“The Administration’s September 24th Executive Order, its 3rd attempt at a travel ban targeting Muslims, inflicts the same harm as the last two versions. So does the October 24th proclamation, which targets vulnerable refugees,” the organizations said in a joint statement.
The President’s September 24 Proclamation, among other things, indefinitely bans all immigrant and almost all nonimmigrant visas to Iranian nationals and bans all immigrant visas and many non-immigrant visas to the nationals of five other majority-Muslim nations, which two courts have already determined violates either federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
The three organizations – Pars Equality Center, Iranian American Bar Association and Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA) – along with individual plaintiffs, previously challenged the Trump administration’s first, second, and third Travel Bans. In May, federal judge Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued an order indicating that she was seriously troubled by the government's actions but would not step in unless the injunctions that were active at the time were rolled back. Plaintiffs now seek protection for refugee applicants harmed by the October 24 Executive Order.
Pars Equality Center, the Iranian American Bar Association and the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans as well as the individual plaintiffs filed this case on February 8 and amended it on March 15. The plaintiffs are represented by the civil rights law firm Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP.
The supplemental motion, along with previous filings, media and other information, can be found at endthetravelban.com.
October 24, 2017
Although not stated in the Order itself, refugees from certain countries (including Iran) and stateless individuals are not allowed to enter the U.S.. Refugees from other countries will now be allowed, subject to the prior cap, and with further extreme vetting
October 10, 2017
Pars Equality Center and other organizations’ lawsuit cited in the national news
DACA Price Tag
DACA PRICE TAG: President Donald Trump released Sunday a list of measures to restrict immigration that he wants in exchange for writing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program into law, POLITICO’s Seung Min Kim reports. The White House called for the border wall; tougher penalties for asylum fraud; faster deportation of unaccompanied minors; a grant cutoff to sanctuary cities; restriction of permanent-residency sponsorship by U.S. citizens to spouses and minor children; and a merit-based points system for green cards.
To read this article, please CLICK HERE.
October 10, 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Aurora Matthews
Lawsuit Argues Trump’s Latest Travel Ban Continues to Target Iranian Americans, Exacerbates Harm of Previous Travel Ban Orders
Iranian-American organizations and 13 individual plaintiffs file challenge to Travel Ban 3.0, ask for response before EO takes effect Oct 18
WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 10, 2017) – A new court filing in federal court in Washington D.C. challenging President Trump’s latest iteration of the travel ban seeks to protect Iranian Americans in the United States and abroad. The lawsuit, filed by three prominent Iranian-American organizations as well as 13 individual plaintiffs, outlines the ways the policy is hurting families, professional and business opportunities, as well as the expansive Iranian-American community.
“The latest Presidential Proclamation on vetting capabilities is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. As a permanent and more sweeping Travel Ban than its two predecessors it is even more egregious and will cause even more harm to Iranian American families and the contributions Iranian Americans make to the U.S. economy and society,” said Cyrus Mehri, founding partner of Washington, DC-based firm Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, who represents the plaintiffs. “I am very proud of our courageous individual clients and our dedicated organizational clients who continue to fight to protect the Iranian American community.”
The President’s September 24 Proclamation, among other things, indefinitely bans all immigrant and almost all nonimmigrant visas to Iranian nationals and bans all immigrant visas and many non-immigrant visas to the nationals of five other majority-Muslim nations. Based on State Department historical data, it is estimated that 60 percent of visas subject to the ban would have been issued to Iranian nationals. On October 5, the government -- citing the September 24 Proclamation -- asked that the injunctions currently in place be lifted, with no provisions to allow visas for individuals with bona fide relationships with entities or individuals in the United States. The September 24 Proclamation will take effect at 12:01 a.m. on October 18, 2017.
A motion to lift the stay along with an amended complaint detailing the unlawful harm to 13 individuals was filed in federal court before Judge Tonya S. Chutkan who in April conducted the only evidentiary hearing on Travel Ban 2.0 and who issued an order expressing concerns about the Travel Ban.
The Complaint has compelling examples from 13 individuals. Among the plaintiffs are: Mohammed Jahanfar, whose fiancé is in Iran studying for her Master’s. Jahanfar, who served in the U.S. Navy and currently lives in California, is worried he and his fiancé will be unable to get married and live together. He says he joined the military in order to give back to his country, but never imagined the government would keep him from his loved ones.
Reza Zoghi fled Iran with his family to escape violent persecution. He, along with his wife and three-year-old daughter, successfully completed the vetting process for resettlement, but they remain in indefinite limbo in Turkey, where he is unable to work and his daughter will be unable to enroll in school.
Another plaintiff, who holds dual citizenship from the U.S. and Iran, is pregnant with her first child in New York City. With her husband working full time and no other close relatives nearby, her mother is trying to move from Iran to help care for her grandchild. But the process continues to be on hold.
The three organizations – Pars Equality Center, Iranian American Bar Association (IABA) and Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA) – along with individual plaintiffs, now seek to lift the stay in this case and seek to enjoin Travel Ban 3.0.
Pars Equality Center, IABA and PAAIA, as well as the individual plaintiffs, filed this case on February 8 and amended it on March 15. The plaintiffs are represented by the civil rights law firm Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Tycko & Zavareei LLP and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP.
The brief and declarations, along with other information can be found at endthetravelban.com.
August 16, 2017
Iranian American Organizations Condemn Violence and Bigotry Displayed by Hate Groups in Charlottesville, Virginia
Washington, D.C. – As organizations representing the Iranian-American community, we stand united in condemning – in the strongest possible terms – the violence and bigotry displayed by hate groups in Charlottesville, Virginia on Friday and Saturday.
We stand in solidarity with all who believe in the promise of America: that no matter where you come from or what you look like, we are all equal.
The display of hatred in Charlottesville, Virginia, that ultimately claimed three lives, has no place in America. The First Amendment allows for the freedom of expression, speech and peaceful assembly, but it does not tolerate or protect speech inciting violence, or the usage of shields and helmets, rifles, and other weapons in expressing that speech. And regardless of the illegality, as Americans, we stand unified against any person that prescribes to these hateful beliefs.
White supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazis or fascists are not patriots. They do not represent the ideals and values that America represents, nor the principles enshrined in our Constitution, and they must be unequivocally denounced and rejected by all who love this country and what it stands for.
President Trump’s failure of moral clarity and leadership as President of the United States must be denounced forthrightly and unequivocally. Morality knows no political party. Racism, bigotry, and violence of any form are intolerable and should be unequivocally condemned by our leaders.
We remain committed to combatting this hateful ideology, in all its forms, and will continue to work with our partners and allies in this fight towards equality and inclusiveness.
Iranian American Bar Association (IABA)
National Iranian American Council (NIAC)
Pars Equality Center
Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA)
July 24, 2017
Iranian-American Community Advisory:
Know Your Rights at the Airport and the Border
Given the recent “Muslim Travel Ban” executive orders, many Iranians are concerned about their right to enter the United States (U.S.) and interacting with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which polices the border. This advisory provides some general guidance. 
Entering the U.S.
Your right to enter the U.S. depends on whether you are a (1) U.S. citizen; (2) a “green card” holder (also known as a “lawful permanent resident” or “LPR”); or (3) a visa holder.
U.S. citizens have an absolute right to enter the U.S. The government must allow entry with proof of identity and citizenship. Showing an unexpired U.S. passport is normally sufficient.
Green card holders (LPRs) have a strong right to enter the U.S. CBP normally cannot refuse entry as long as the trip abroad was brief (usually 6 months or less) and innocent (which usually means no criminal issues). Otherwise, you may be subject to deportation.
IMPORTANT NOTE: CBP officers do not have the right to take away your immigration status; only an immigration judge has that authority. A green card holder (LPR) has the right to go before an immigration judge, who will decide whether or not to revoke the green card. Do not sign any document that you do not understand. You often will not immediately see a judge because of backlogs in the court. Depending on your case, you may or may not be detained in a detention center during this process. As such, consult with an immigration attorney before you travel.
Visa holders with valid travel documents to enter the U.S. are still inspected at the border. CBP officers can question you at the airport or border. If they find that you are not seeking to enter the U.S. for the purpose of your visa, or if there is a visa violation, they can refuse your entry into the U.S.
If CBP detains and prohibits you from entering the U.S., and you fear returning to your home country, you may want to tell the CBP agent of your fear of returning home. Doing so triggers the “Credible Fear Interview,” which requires CBP to determine if you have a legitimate fear. Claiming fear will start the asylum process and prohibits CBP from immediately making you return to your home country. However, you may be held in a detention center for several months until you can see an immigration judge. Alternatively, CBP may release you from the airport with paperwork on the next steps of your asylum case.
NOTE ON THE MUSLIM BAN: U.S. citizens, dual nationals, and green card holders (LPRs) are NOT included in the Muslim Travel Ban executive orders. Since February 1, 2017, the government has explicitly stated that green card holders (LPRs) are exempt. As of June 26 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court has also said that the Muslim Travel Ban cannot be enforced against foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship (i.e. a particular kind of qualifying relationship) with a person or entity in the U.S. Please check for updates as the law is constantly evolving. This advisory does not fully cover the Muslim Travel Ban. Please see our organization websites for more information.
Going Through Customs
CBP has broad authority at the border and airport. This includes the ability to ask questions to decide whether non-U.S. citizens can enter the U.S. CBP officers can ask about your immigration status when you are entering and leaving the U.S., as well as routine customs questions about the nature and purpose of your travel.
U.S. citizens do not have to answer questions outside the scope of immigration status/presenting a valid passport and basic customs questions, but refusing to answer them may lead to delay.
YES: The agent can ask questions to confirm you are who you say you are.
YES: The agent can ask what countries you visited while you were abroad.
YES: The agent can ask why you went to specific countries.
YES: The agent can ask how much money you are taking/returning with.
NO: The agent cannot ask you about your religion, your politics, or other irrelevant and inappropriate questions of this nature. If this happens, politely ask for a supervisor and try to remember the agent’s name and the questions you were asked.
If you are traveling to Iran to manage finances, land, property, or an inheritance, you may want to consult with an Iran sanctions attorney before you leave the U.S. (contact our organizations for a list of attorneys).
Green card holders (LPRs) have a lot of protections, but not as much as U.S. citizens. CBP can ask questions about your immigration status and routine questions about whether or not your trip was brief and innocent (see above). However, green card holders (LPRs) are not required to answer broader and intrusive questions (see above).
Visa holders have the least amount of protection, particularly non-immigrant visa holders. CBP can ask a range of questions to confirm: your identity; that you are coming to the U.S. for a legitimate reason; that you are not breaking the law by entering; and other related questions. Unfortunately, visa holders can be denied entry for not answering questions. Before you step off your flight, make sure to review the visa paperwork so that the answers to the CBP agent match the information on your application.
For all travelers, regardless of your immigration status, if a CBP officer asks questions beyond the scope of routine travels (such as questions about political beliefs, religious practices, or questions about family and community), you can ask to speak with a supervisor. You can also ask for the name and badge number of the CBP officer to file a complaint with U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties. Contact our organizations for assistance.
If You Are Searched
There are two stages of inspection at the airport: primary and secondary. Everyone goes through primary inspection, where you go up to the CBP agent and show your passport and any immigration paperwork. If CBP pulls you aside and questions you further (usually in a different room and by a different agent), then you are in secondary inspection.
CBP does not allow attorneys into secondary inspection, but you should still have the name and number of your attorney with you and ask to contact her/him if you believe that your rights are being violated or you are being forced to answer questions that may incriminate you. Asking for an attorney cannot be used against you.
CBP has the authority to stop, detain, and search any person and any item at the border (which includes airports) and within 100 miles of the border.However, the U.S. Constitution prohibits searches or questioning solely because of national origin, ethnicity, race, religion, political beliefs, or gender. If you are stopped and searched for any of these reasons, you can politely object and state that you do not consent to a search. It is very important that you never physically resist a search. Instead, you can ask to speak with a supervisor and keep a record of the CBP agent’s name and badge number.
Recently, CBP agents have started searching electronic devices such as laptops, phones, etc. much more frequently. The law is currently unclear on the right to search laptops and cell phones at the border. Nevertheless, CBP will often ask travelers to unlock their devices to search them, even when they have no reason to think you did anything wrong. 
U.S. citizens cannot be denied entry to the U.S. for refusing to provide access to their device, produce passwords, or submit their electronic devices for a search. Green card holders (LPRs) cannot be denied entry for the same activity unless the trip was not brief or innocent. While visa holders, particularly non-immigrant visa holders, can also refuse to provide access to their electronic devices, doing so may complicate their entry and result in denial of entry to the U.S.
A CBP agent can confiscate your electronic devices regardless of your immigration status. In such instances, write down the name and badge number of the CBP officer and ask for a receipt for your confiscated property. Contact one of our organizations for help.
If your passport, visa, or global entry is revoked, please seek legal assistance to confirm that it was properly revoked or to take action to get it reinstated. In certain cases, passports, visas, or global entry is revoked for discriminatory or accidental reasons and there are remedies available to you.
Be honest. It is important to remain silent or tell the truth. Lying to a federal officer can be a federal crime. Even an accidental lie can lead to a federal criminal charge. For example, if you are asked about travels dates and accidentally give a wrong date, that may constitute lying to a federal officer.
Do not sign any documents you do not understand. If you are asked to sign any documents by CBP, it is very important that you understand what you are signing to ensure you are not waiving your rights or immigration status.
Ask for an interpreter if you are not fully comfortable communicating in English. If one is not available, tell the agent that you cannot answer questions in English because you don’t understand it well enough.
Back up the data on your electronic devices before traveling. Please see the Electronic Frontier Foundation pamphlet Digital Privacy at the U.S. Border: Protecting the Data on Your Devices and in the Cloud.
Consider using temporary devices when traveling. If you have to bring your main phone or laptop with you: i) log out of social media and email accounts; ii) check to make sure there is no information on your phone that you would not want an agent to see (e.g. photos, frequently visited websites, contacts); and iii) make sure you completely power down your device before you go in front of the agent (do not just close it or put it in sleep mode).
Make sure to use strong passwords on your electronic devices (instead of fingerprint passcodes). Consider encrypting your entire device as well.
If you have other questions about your rights, particularly relating to the FBI, please read the following Know Your Rights pamphlet that covers such topics.
Please contact us with any questions by clicking on the links below. We have Farsi speakers available at all organizations.
 This advisory is intended as a general reference only; it does not constitute legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship. For specific questions, please contact our organizations to speak with an attorney.
Immigration and Nationality Act 287(a)(3) states that CBP agents, without a warrant, may “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States… board and search for aliens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle.” The term “reasonable distance” is defined by 8 Code of Federal Regulations 287(a)(1) as 100 air miles from the U.S. border.
Note: In Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington (state), CBP has to have “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a forensic search of a digital device (a detailed search using special equipment).
Pars KYR Publications
Know Your Rights, Airport and Border Rights,& Hate Crimes, CLICK HERE.
Know Your Rights for Arab Middle Eastern Communities Muslim and South Asian Communities -- Arabic, CLICK HERE.
Know Your Rights for Arab Middle Eastern Communities Muslim and South Asian Communities -- English, CLICK HERE.
Know Your Rights for Arab Middle Eastern Communities Muslim and South Asian Communities -- Persian, CLICK HERE.
Know Your Rights Immigration Status ICE and Police Stops ICE Home Visits and Arrest -- English, CLICK HERE.
Know Your Rights Immigration Status ICE and Police Stops ICE Home Visits and Arrest -- Persian, CLICK HERE.
Other KYR Publications
- CET Emergency Plan in English and Spanish, CLICK HERE.
- Know Your Rights after DACA (AILA advisory) in English, CLICK HERE.
- Know Your Rights after DACA (AILA advisory) in Spanish, CLICK HERE.
- Raids Resource List (KIND, Migration Refugee Services, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.), CLICK HERE.
- Marijuana use, although legal in the State of California, can jeopardize non-citizens in English, CLICK HERE.
- Marijuana use, although legal in the State of California, can jeopardize non-citizens in Persian, CLICK HERE.
- Understanding the Muslim Bans, CLICK HERE.