ICE is still trying to kick Rümeysa Öztürk out of the country for the perfidy of writing an op-ed in a student newspaper it didn’t like, but a judge ruled today that as long as she’s here, it has to restore her listing in the national database that determines whether foreign students can participate in American college and work programs.
In a ruling today, US District Court Judge Denise Casper said that not only does ICE have to restore Öztürk listing in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), it has to give her and her lawyer at least a week'...
ICE is still trying to kick Rümeysa Öztürk out of the country for the perfidy of writing an op-ed in a student newspaper it didn’t like, but a judge ruled today that as long as she’s here, it has to restore her listing in the national database that determines whether foreign students can participate in American college and work programs.
In a ruling today, US District Court Judge Denise Casper said that not only does ICE have to restore Öztürk listing in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), it has to give her and her lawyer at least a week's notice if it's thinking of purging her again.
Casper said Öztürk - dragooned by hooded men outside her Somerville apartment on March 25, then driven around New England before being flown to Louisiana - met all the requirements for the preliminary injunction that remains in effect as long as her case against removal remains active in court: She showed irreparable harm without it - she cannot get jobs and positions related to her educational work while she's not in the database - that an injunction is in the public interest and that she has a strong likelihood of winning based on the fact the government so obviously broke the law in the way it tried to strip her of her ability to continue as a student in the US.
The government contends that an injunction is not in the public interest, because of the government's interest in immigration control. The Court does not question that the government has multiple legitimate interests in the realm of immigration enforcement. ... The government, however, directs the Court to no case recognizing an interest in enforcing immigration policy through unlawful means.