We have been favored in the United States with an Immigration Law that was designed to make it easier for m-ssi-naries and p-stors to come and go.   That is not to say that it is easy, but there have been a number of accommodations made specifically for m-ssi-naries.   There are specific m-ssi-nary and p-storal categories identified under the B-1 visa that allow people to come here to serve as volunteers.   There are the non-immigrant and immigrant R-ligious worker provisions that allow people to come here temporarily or permanently to work as m-ssi-naries or p-stors.    These are not easy visa categories to obtain, but there is nothing like them for any other occupation.  Every other type of work visa is considerably more difficult or expensive to get.

Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders) are supposed to live in the U.S.— it is a “residence” card.   If they want to become U.S. citizens, they need to live here three years if they are married to a U.S. citizen, and five years if they are not.   This creates a problem for m-ssi-naries who serve overseas for extended periods of time.   They could possibly lose their green card if they are determined to no longer live here, and it is hard to rack up three or five years of residence time in the U.S. if you are never here.

However, in view of the important service that m-ssi-naries do, the U.S. Immigration Law has two different options for obtaining citizenship for m-ssi-naries.   The first is for spouses of U.S. citizen m-ssi-naries.   These non-citizen spouses can get U.S. citizenship without ever even living here in the U.S.!  If a m-ssi-nary green card holder is not married to U.S. citizen, he still needs to accumulate his five years of residence, but the law allows him to do that while he is outside the country!!   The law will treat his time abroad as if he were living in the U.S.!   That is an incredible benefit.   However, in order to take advantage of this benefit, he will need to, at some point, live here in the U.S. for one year without leaving.

Of course, these benefits have other requirements as well — if you think you might be qualified, be sure to call me before making any concrete plans.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

As many of you know, citizens of certain countries can enter the US without a visa.   For the most part, they are citizens of European countries and countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore.   The idea is that these are countries from which only a small number of people stay in the US illegally.  The citizens of these countries are rewarded by being able to come for 90 days without a visa.   Countries where a high percentage of people try to stay in the US are not allowed to participate in the Visa Waiver program.

However, there is growing concern that terrorists, like the ones in France, might use the Visa Waiver program to enter the US.   Therefore, a recent bill last year added new restrictions.   People who are from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen will not be allowed to use the Visa Waiver program, even if they are also a citizen of one of the Visa Wavier countries.

More significantly, if a person even visits one of those countries, then that person will not be allowed to use the Visa Waiver program.   That person may still be able to enter the US, but they will be required to get a visa.

The reason I am bringing this up is that you or your spouse could be a person who often enters the US on the visa waiver program, but you believe G*d is calling you to visit one of those countries.   You or your spouse will still be able to apply for a visa to come to the US, but you will not be able to continue to come on the Visa Waiver program.    This means that it could take longer and be more difficult to enter the United States after taking a trip to one of those countries.

I hope that all makes sense.  It gets complicated.   Remember, it is not stating that people will be forbidden to enter the US.  It just means that it will not be as simple for some people.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

Most people, if they want to come to the US temporarily, need a visa.   They have to pay the visa application fee, go on-line and fill out an extensive visa application, schedule an appointment at the consulate, bring relevant supporting evidence regarding their reason for coming to the US and, often, their ties to their home country, and then hope that they get approved for the visa.   If they do get approved for the visa, they still have to go through border processing where they border guards have the full authority to refuse them entry if the border guard believes that they are entering for the wrong purpose — for example, if they want to work while here on a tourist visa.

Canadians have it quite a bit easier.   They do not have to apply for a visa for a temporary visit, they just come up to the border and bring the evidence to show why they qualify to be admitted.  The lack of a visa requirement is partly because Canada and the US have had a close relationship for many years, and there is a lot of business that goes on between the US and Canada.   But also because Canada has always had a good economy, and very few people come from Canada to the US with the intent to stay permanently.

However, there are a number of countries around the world who also have good economies, who have close economic ties with the US, and whose citizens rarely overstay their visas to the US.   These are countries like those found in Europe, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Australia.   For these countries, the US has developed the Visa Waiver program.   The Visa Waiver program allows certain citizens of these countries to visit the US without a visa if they are coming as B visitors.   People from those countries who wish to come under other visa categories will still need to get a visa.

Most visits to the US (whether as tourists or for business purposes) are done under the B visitor category.   Remember, the B category allows persons to visit if they want to tour or visit friends or family or volunteer or for business purposes, but they are not allowed to work in the US.   Also, they must have significant ties to their home country, and a residence outside of the US which they do not intend to abandon.   Because there are some many people from these countries who come to the US in B status, having the Visa Waiver program frees up time at the consulates for other types of visas, and it makes it easier for the free flow of information, business, and, of course, tourists bringing money to spend.

The Visa Waiver program is pretty straightforward.   You need to go to the ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) website, https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/esta.html, and complete the on-line application and pay the small fee (currently $14).  If you are approved by ESTA, then you may use that ESTA approval to travel to the US for up to two years (or the expiration of your passport if that is less than two years).   You do not need a visa, you can just get on the plane and come to the US.    You still need to be prepared for questions about your intent in coming to the US — they are looking for people who might want to work in the US or who might intend on staying in the US, or who have other improper intents — but, in general, since you are from a Visa Waiver country, they expect that you are coming for a proper purpose and intend to abide by the terms of the B visitor category.  They generally do not give a lot of hassle to people who are coming on the Visa Waiver program, but if they think that you are not going to abide by the rules, they will forbid you entrance to the US.

There are a few things to remember about the Visa Waiver program.   First off, to use it, you need to have an e-passport.   That is a passport with an electronic chip in it.  Most visa waiver countries have transitioned to an e-passport, but if your passport is older, it might not be an e-passport.

Also, a person who comes on Visa Waiver is more restricted than a person who comes on a B visa or who comes from Canada.   If you enter under the Visa Waiver program, you are given 90 days.   You cannot be given more than 90 days, and you must leave within those 90 days.   You cannot extend your stay here in the US past 90 days.   You are free to leave for a day or two and then return to the US under the Visa Waiver program for another 90 days, but, of course, there is no guarantee that they will let you back in.   And, if you do that too often, they will be suspicious, and will probably not let you back in.

If they deny you entry even one time, you are no longer allowed to use the Visa Waiver program to come to the US.   Even if you feel that they improperly refused to allow you to enter, you will never again be allowed to come under the Visa Waiver program.   You can always go and apply for a B visa and, if you get one, come back, but you will not be allowed back under Visa Waiver.   Of course, if they do deny you entrance under the Visa Waiver program, it might be difficult to get a B visa for a number of years, but, eventually, you will probably be able to get a B visa to return to the US.

Another limitation is that a person who enters on Visa Waiver cannot change his non-immigrant status.   In other words, you cannot enter in B status and then change to F status or to R status or any other status.    The only changes you can make are to get married to a US citizen and file for a green card based on your marriage to the US citizen.    However, as I have pointed out before, you are not allowed to enter the US with the intent to file for a green card.

An important point to also know about Visa Waiver is that when you sign up for Visa Waiver, you waive (give up) your rights to defend yourself against deportation.    If they decide that you have violated your status and want to deport you, they can, and you don’t have any right to contest that in court.  This is not likely to happen often, but it does happen.

Also, check back next week for a more recent restriction on travel under the Visa Waiver program if you have recently visited certain Islamic countries.

The Visa Waiver program is very useful for people from certain countries who want to come for a short trip to the US.   It won’t work for everybody, but for most people who are citizens of the Visa Waiver countries, it opens up a quick, easy way to come and visit.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

This is a tricky question — from a lot of angles.   The simple answer is that a person who is here in the US in B status cannot attend school.  And, if you tell the Immigration Officer at the Border that you are planning on attending school, he will not let you in.

But, as always, it is not that simple.   You definitely cannot attend a regular school in its regular program.   In order to attend school, you need to switch to a F visa, and you are absolutely not allowed to enroll before your change to F status is approved.   But, what if you just visit the class and attend without being enrolled?   If you are not registered as a student, you are not “studying”, you are just enjoying learning for the sake of learning.   But, if you do this while you are waiting for the change to F, and then once the change to F is approved, you try to get credit for your attendance at the class before the change to F  — that gets sticky.  You probably shouldn’t do that.

By the way, you are not supposed to enter the US as a B visitor with the intent to change to an F (student) visa after you enter the US.  It seems that it is easier to enter as a B than to enter as an F.   So people do that, and it is frowned upon — but people do it anyway.

I know that the USCIS/DOS (Department of State) will let people come to the US on a B visa to attend programs that are educational but are also fun — perhaps a dance camp or a music camp or a science camp.   I think that, arguably, they can come for a m-ssions training program.   I can’t say that for sure it is allowable, but people do it — I don’t know what they say to the person at the border or at the Consulate when they apply for the visa.   Now, it gets stickier if that training program also qualifies to accept F visa students.   I think that if a border guard knew that someone was coming to the US to attend a training program at a school which also accepts F visa students, the Border guard would probably not let the person in, but I can’t say for sure.

There is a similar issue if the student coming for a m-ssions training program is coming on a B-1 m-ssionary visa.   Someone coming on a m-ssionary visa should be coming to be a m-ssionary, not to be a student.   I think attending a m-ssions training program could be a problem.   But on the other hand, you can make the argument that they training program also includes significant opportunities to perform outreach.

I hope that is helpful.  I really don’t have much guidance here because there is a clear rule, but there can be a lot of exceptions depending on how you shape those exceptions.   But, on the other hand, there is no guarantee that those “exceptions” will work and keep you out of trouble.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

Well, here we go again!!   There is a new Revised Executive Order from President Trump.    Those who agree with his position on security in regard to immigration will cheer.   The main stream media will claim it is discriminatory.   As for me, I don’t agree with either.

Anyway, he did a much better job in writing this Executive Order.   The first one was a shoot-from-the-hip sort of job.   This one was much more carefully written in order to increase the chances that it will survive a court attack.   This version more carefully sets out the reasoning behind the decisions in the Executive Order.   This is done so that it is harder for someone to say that this Executive Order is arbitrary or based on prejudice.  That doesn’t mean that the courts have to agree with the reasoning in the Executive Order, but they have to at least give it reasonable consideration.

The main changes in this Executive Order are as follows:

1. Iraq is left off the list of nations whose nationals are not admissible.   There are now only six nations on the list.  The order says that Iraq has been working hard on helping us vet visa applicants (to be honest, I think it was a political decision — it looked bad to exclude people from Iraq).
2. The EO specifies that a person from those six nations can still enter if he has a US green card, if he already has a visa (or if he had one when the first EO was issued and then lost it due to the first EO), if he has already been granted refugee status, or if he also has a passport from a second country and is entering using that.   So, essentially, the EO just states that you can’t get a new visa if you are from one of those countries.
3. The EO no longer states that priority will be given to religious minorities in the refugee process.
4. The EO says that states and localities should be able to have a say in regard to whether refugees are resettled there.

The main things that were in the First EO and are continued in the Revised EO.

1. The 90 day limitations on entry by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
2. The Refugee program will be suspended for 120 days to allow the US to determine what additional precautions are needed.
3. The US Government will make a survey of countries around the world to make sure that they are providing the US with information necessary for the US to vet visa applicants.   And, if some countries are lacking in what they provide the US and the countries can’t or won’t improve, the US could take further actions — such as restrictions or limitations to protect US interests.  This was in the first EO, but was, in my opinion, not laid out clearly.  It is much more specific in this Revised EO.

So, in reality, this EO only affects people from those six nations who do not currently have visas, and refugees from all over the world.  And, currently it only affects people for 90 days if they are from those six countries, and 120 days if they are refugees.   Whether or not you agree with this EO, and I don’t, I still think those are not unreasonable limitations when a new leader is trying to grapple with what is, I think, a difficult situation.  Hopefully, within those timeframes, he will make an honest effort to fairly evaluate what steps can be taken to both provide for people who want to come here and for our security.   We can pray for that.

As far as this being a discriminatory Executive Order, I don’t see it based on the rationale provided in the Executive Order.   As I wrote in my earlier post, the seven countries on the list were all countries where the government either cannot or won’t cooperate with the US in making sure that visa applicants are well vetted.   The vast majority of Muslim countries are not on this list.    Also, the refugee restriction limits access to Christians and other religions as well as Muslims.   Furthermore, this Revised EO pointed out something that I had not realized — all six of these countries had been identified by the Obama administration as either State Sponsors of Terrorism or as a “country of concern” based on factors relating to terrorism and national security.   So it isn’t only Trump who has concerns about these countries.  Now, people can feel free to believe that this is a discriminatory Executive Order (and maybe they are correct), but I would suggest that that conclusion is driven by facts outside of what the EO actually says.

How does this affect you?   If you are not a refugee or a person from one of those six countries who does not have a visa, it does not affect you at all.  If you are from one of those six countries, you won’t get a new visa.  If you are here in the US from one of those six countries and your visa expires (remember that you are allowed to stay here as long as you have “status”, which is unrelated to when your visa expires) or you have a single-entry visa, if you leave the US you will not be allowed back in.

One other thing to keep in mind — there is a chance that a limitation on the granting of visas from other countries could occur in the future once the US has reviewed the world-wide visa situation.   To be honest, I don’t really expect that, but it could occur.

In case you are interested in my opinion — I don’t like these executive orders.  I think that they are reasonable attempts to resolve a difficult world-wide problem, but I don’t think that they really will help.    I really don’t think that there is a way to effectively vet people from a section of the world where lawlessness is rampant and governments are breaking down.   In my opinion, from what I have seen in almost two decades of doing immigration law, the people that interview the visa applicants act on hunches and emotions more than anything else — to be honest, their job is almost impossible — there really isn’t any way to see into the hearts of the people standing before them.  That won’t change even with additional vetting — usually, the information just isn’t there.  I think it will increase the denials of innocent people, but it won’t necessarily make us safer.  We have the best law enforcement in the world — I think that they are doing a great job, and they protect us well.   I think we now have probably the best balance we can have between security and receiving the aliens that God has called us to reach out to and care for.  I think that the level of security that this Executive Order is trying to accomplish cannot really be attained, but it may result in people whom God commands us to receive instead being turned away.

I think that is all.  We will see how it plays out in the courts.    What I really hope is that we would pray for God to guide President Trump and give him Godly wisdom in his decisions.  I also wish that we could discuss these matters without accusing the other side of being racist or anti-American.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

The short answer is that you should not do it, but if you do it, you will probably be fine.  The reasoning is that a B-2 is a tourist-type visa.   It is for people who want to come and visit the US as a tourist or to visit friends or family.   It is not for people who are coming with some sort of purpose that could be viewed as business or religious.   There is a visa for people who want to come for a religious purpose — it is the B-1.

If at the consulate or at the border you say that you want to enter the US to be a m-ssionary, they will probably tell you that you cannot enter on a B-2.    However, things are never completely clear-cut at the border.   Perhaps you say that you want to come to the US to visit your friends and volunteer with their religious organization.   Perhaps, if the border guard focuses on the visiting your friends part of the description, he will let you in.   Perhaps if he will be okay with the idea that you are just coming to volunteer at a m-ssionary organization, even though he really should not.

The other option, which I think happens a lot, is that people say that they are coming to visit friends or to visit America.   That is true.   However, those friends are m-ssionaries with an organization here in the US, and the visitors are planning on volunteering at the m-ssion organization.  In my opinion, this is not really proper, and, if the border guard would know about it, he really should not allow it.    But, as I said above, the border guard might have allowed it anyway.   And, as long as there is no income for the visitor, most likely no one is going to complain about it or give the visitor a problem.   But, there is no guarantee.  You need to understand that there is somewhat of a risk to doing this, even though it is a small risk.  I think many, many people do this on a regular basis and never run into a problem — but I cannot recommend this because it really is not in line with what the B-2 visitor/tourist visa is intended for.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

Gunnar Armstrong

The general rule for a B is that you can stay as long as they think that you are not living and working here and that you have a residence outside of the US that you have no intention of relinquishing, and that you have the intent to return home when you legal stay ends.   In practice, for people here on a B-2 (tourist visa), that means that they will usually give you six months when you enter, and they will ordinarily give you one six-month extension if you file the appropriate papers.

B-1s are a little different.   Usually, when people come for a business purpose, they have a specific goal in mind.  And, therefore, at the border, B-1 business visitors are often given a time that is meant to correspond to the purpose of their trip.   If someone is coming for a business meeting, he might be given only a week or ten days.   If it is something that could take two or three weeks, he might be given a month.

But, m-ssionaries are often coming for a longer term.  In fact the regulations specifically say that a B visitor can stay more than a year, even a number of years, on a B-1 visa as long as the meet the requirements, stated above, for coming on a B visa.    However, it is not that easy.

At the border, they will seldom give you B-1 status for more than six months, even if you tell them you want to stay at least a year.   But, you can then request an extension.   The advantage of being a B-1 m-ssionary, is that you are more likely to be able to get an extension beyond one year.  It seems to me that I have known a person who stayed here for several years as a B-1.

But, that is rare.   And, the longer your stay stretches on, the less likely you are to get an extension.

However, the real problem is at the border.   It is seldom that a person comes here and wants to stay for two or three years without a break.   Sometime in the process he will want to go home.   And, when he returns to the border with his B-1 and asks to be readmitted, there is where he will most likely have trouble.   They are the gatekeepers.  They are the ones who are trained to be suspicious and look for people who may want to enter and stay.   They will look at your record and see that you have been here for the past year or 18 months, and will see that you have only been out of the country for two weeks or a month, and it will look suspicious to them.  It will fit the pattern of a person who really is living here rather than visiting.    If they are up on their rules, they will understand that a B-1 is allowed to do this.    But, often, they will look at this from the same point of view that they would look at a B-2 visitor, and deny you.   I don’t really fault them — they are expected to be suspicious, and there are so many different types of visitors and visas, and it is hard, mentally, to switch from the suspicious B-2 visa mental mode (where they are most of the time) and switch to consider a more generous but rare exception to the rules.

So, in summary, a B-1 m-ssionary can potentially be here for several years.  But in practice, I think it may be difficult to stretch the time here much past a year or 18 months, especially if you want to come and go.

But, if there is anyone who has been able to stay long on a B-1 visa as a m-ssionary, I (and any other readers) would be very interested in hearing from you.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

I was doing some research today, and found an explicit reference to receiving Honorarium on a B-1.   This may be of interest to some people coming to the US on a B visa for short visits.  I don’t think this would really help people who are here for a longer-term m-ssion trip.   This is taken from the Foreign Affairs manual of the U.S. Department of State.

9 FAM 41.31 N11.2 Honorarium Payment (CT:VISA-701; 02-15-2005) INA 212(p) provides that a B-1 nonimmigrant may accept an honorarium payment and associated incidental expenses for usual academic activities (which can include lecturing, guest teaching, or performing in an academic sponsored festival) if: (1) The activities last no longer than nine days at any single institution or organization; (2) Payment is offered by an institution or organization described in INA 212(p); (3) The honorarium is for services conducted for the benefit of the institution or entity; and (4) The alien has not accepted such payment or expenses from more than five institutions or organizations over the last six months

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

See the last two week’s entries for an introduction to the topic of support on a B visa and for some possible avenues for stretching your resources while you are here on in B status.

Here is my final entry on this topic.

B-1s can sometimes receive stipends.  This might be allowable on certain business type B-1 situations where the B-1 is here to learn a skill or for some business purpose, and he is given a stipend to support him while he is here.   M-ssionaries are specifically allowed a stipend or expense allowance/reimbursement for the costs of living here.   Note this should come from the organization that they are a m-ssionary for.  This is not an excuse to fundraise.  Also, it is to cover costs — it should be just enough for expenses; it is not meant to be a source of income.   I would be extremely uncomfortable with a B-2 receiving money in this manner.   There is nothing like this in the B-2 regulations.

There is another option as well — but this is one where you need to be careful.   I have known of situation where a church has provided housing and food and, perhaps, money to people here on a B-2 or a similar status.   You need to remember that a B-2 (or a B-1 for that matter) is not allowed to seek or accept donations.   But, there is nothing forbidding them from receiving gifts.   But, if they are also volunteering for that church they need to be careful that the gifts really are gifts and not payment in disguise.

Well, in closing, you may say that that was a lot of non-clarity.  The truth is, there are few clear rules here.   But there is some guidance, and, we also rely on experience to give us a guide as to what is acceptable.  In the final analysis,  the people at the border or the people at the USCIS adjudicating an application are the people who really determine what is allowed and what is not — and what they decide is usually based more on their attitude at that specific moment than it is on any clear-cut rules.   So, all we can do is make careful and wise choices and pray.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

Yesterday, Friday, a Federal District Court in Seattle issued a Temporary Oder overturning President Trump’s Executive Order which had temporarily banned visas from seven Muslim countries and halted the refugee program.    Two states, Washington and Minnesota, filed a request for this Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).   It is not clear from the Order what the basis was for their request, but, most likely, it was the idea that the Executive Order is unconstitutional in some way.

A Temporary Restraining Order is issued when the need for the Order is so great that there isn’t time to wait until a full hearing.   A permanent Order can only be issued after a full hearing with evidence.  On Friday, there was, basically, just an argument, without real evidence, before the Court, and the two states, Washington and Minnesota, apparently succeeded in convincing the Judge that 1) they would probably win at the full hearing and 2) that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Executive Order is not overturned immediately pending the full evidence hearing.   This is the standard procedure for obtaining a TRO and there is nothing unusual here.

I don’t like the Executive Order.  I think it was implemented hastily without careful thought, and, in my opinion, I think it is doing more harm than good.   And, consequently, I am glad that it will not be in effect.

However, I am not at all convinced that this Court is correct that it most likely violates the law.  I do not think that the Executive Order is unconstitutional.  The heightened protections of our Constitution apply to US Citizens and permanent residents — not to non-citizen non-residents.  There are lesser protections that may apply to non-residents, but I don’t think that those are relevant to this discussion.  And the heightened Consitutional protections especially don’t apply to people outside our country.   Furthermore, as I said in my last posting, I don’t think that this Executive Order, at least as it is written, discriminates against any religion.

The court order also forbids the part of the Executive Order that states that preference will be given to minority religions.    I think that is completely wrong.  Our refugee policy has always picked and chosen what nationality or religious group was going to get our primary assistance.   Under Reagan, we made a priority of assisting Armenians, Soviet Jews and Russian Baptists and Pentecostals.   We have prioritized Muslims from Sarajevo.   More recently, we have been prioritizing Syrian Muslims and Christians and Muslims from Burma. I really don’t think that this decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant governing law.

Finally, will this court order be overturned?   Will the Executive Order come back into force?  I think it is unlikely.   I think that the Judge who entered this order has already made up his mind — and so I don’t think there is likely to be any change after evidence is presented.   And, if it is appealed, it will go up to the 9^th Circuit — the judges who oversee Federal cases in California, Oregon and Washington.   Their decisions are usually consistently on the liberal side of the law — so they most likely will side with the lower court.   And, if it is appealed to the Supreme Court, which could take a long time, at this point, the Supreme Court is evenly balanced between liberals and (mostly) conservatives — and a tie will “affirm” the decision of the Ninth Circuit.   Of course, if Trump can get a conservative on the Supreme Court, then it might come out differently.

So, who knows, but I think that the Executive Order is dead for now.  I am glad that it is not in force.  But I wish it was withdrawn in a reasoned legal manner, rather than in an Order which, in my opinion, does not follow the law.

How does this affect people who want to travel to the US from those seven countries and how does it affect Refugees?   Currently, things will continue much as they were going before.   People can now come and go freely as long as they have a visa.  It is not certain what will happen for the, I think, 60,000 people who had their visas canceled.  I think that they will probably need to reapply for a visa.

It is important to keep in mind that if a person is from one of the seven countries, this TRO is temporary.  It may be ended at any time after a hearing or after an appeal.  In that case, the Executive Order may come back into force.   So, if a person from one of those countries wants to come to the US, they had better come as soon as they can.   I suspect that President Trump will be appealing this as soon as possible, so we may be hearing that the Executive Order is back in force in just a few days or few weeks.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.