By Steve Gorman
(Reuters) – A federal judge in Wisconsin on Friday struck the first legal blow to President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, banning the application of the policy to deny entry to the United States to the wife and child of a Syrian refugee who He has already received asylum in the United States.
The temporary restraining order, granted by US District Judge William Conley in Madison, applies only to the family of the Syrian refugee, who filed the case anonymously to protect the identities of his wife and daughter, who still live in the city. Syrian city devastated by war. Aleppo.
But it represents the first of several challenges filed against Trump’s recently amended executive order, issued on March 6 and taking effect on March 16, to issue a court ruling opposing its enforcement.
Conley, chief judge of the federal court in the western district of Wisconsin and appointed by former President Barack Obama, concluded that the plaintiff “has presented some probability of success on the merits” of his case and that his family faces “significant risk. irreparable damage “. if he is forced to stay in Syria.
The plaintiff, a Sunni Muslim, fled Syria to the United States in 2014 to “escape near certain death” at the hands of sectarian military forces fighting the Syrian government in Aleppo, according to his complaint.
He subsequently obtained asylum for his wife and their only surviving daughter, a daughter, and his application had passed the security investigation process and was heading for final prosecution when he was stopped by Trump’s original travel ban on January 27.
That executive order sought to ban citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Iraq) from entering the United States for 120 days and suspend the entry of all refugees indefinitely.
The original travel ban, which caused widespread chaos and protests at airports when it was first implemented, was rescinded after the state of Washington won a nationwide federal court order blocking enforcement of the policy.
The amended executive order reduced the number of counties excluded, removing Iraq from the list, and lifted the indefinite travel ban for Syrian refugees. But opponents from various states have also gone to court to try to stop its implementation.
“The court appreciates that there may be significant differences between the original executive order and the revised executive order,” Conley wrote in its decision. “However, since the order applies to the plaintiff here, the court determines that their claims have at least some chance of prevailing for reasons set forth by other courts.”
In a related development on Friday, the federal judge in Seattle who imposed a nationwide court order enforcing the original travel ban rejected a request to apply that order to the revised policy, saying attorneys for the states that are opposed to the measure should file a more extensive lawsuit. court papers.
(Reporting and writing by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York and Sharon Bernstein in Sacramento, California; Editing by Sandra Maler and Mary Milliken)
Disclaimer: Fusion Media wishes to remind you that the data contained on this website is not necessarily accurate or in real time. All CFDs (stocks, indices, futures) and Forex prices are not provided by exchanges but by market makers, so the prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual market price, which means that prices are indicative and not appropriate for commercial purposes. Therefore, Fusion Media assumes no responsibility for any business losses you may incur as a result of the use of this data.
Fusion Media or anyone involved with Fusion Media will not accept any responsibility for loss or damage as a result of reliance on information, including data, quotes, charts, and buy / sell signals contained on this website. Be fully informed about the risks and costs associated with trading financial markets, it is one of the riskiest investment forms possible.