With three words, the Supreme Court opens world of doubt
Fouad Dagoum fled Sudan after his village was ransacked by militia members who captured, detained and tortured him until his body was limp.
Eventually, he escaped to Egypt, where he was parked for more than a decade until getting a green light to resettle in the United States with his wife, Azhar Ahmed, and daughter, Lames.
Two years ago, the family arrived in New Haven, Conn., where they knew no one.
A refugee resettlement agency found them an apartment, signed them up for benefits, got them Social Security numbers and enrolled the daughter in school.
“It was hard,” recalled Ahmed, 32. “When we arrive, we don’t know anyone. We don’t have friends. We don’t speak English. But we are safe, and we got help.”
‘Bona fide relationship’
About four out of 10 refugees who come to the United States have no family ties in the country, according to independent estimates.
In some cities known for taking in refugees — like Boise, Idaho; New Haven, Conn.; and Fayetteville, Ark. — those with no family ties are a majority.
On Monday, the Supreme Court threw into question whether such refugees, who are among the most vulnerable people seeking a haven after fleeing persecution or conflict, will be approved for resettlement in the United States.
In agreeing to hear two cases on President Donald Trump’s travel ban, the court introduced a new phrase to the fraught discussion of refugees and Muslim immigrants: “bona fide relationship.”
Those who can show a “bona fide relationship” with a “person or entity” in the United States will not be affected by Trump’s 120-day halt to refugee admissions or his 90-day ban on travel from six majorityMuslim countries, according to the court’s order. Those refugees or travelers must be admitted, at least for now.
However, those who have no family, business or other ties can be prohibited, the court said.
Fighting back
The justices gave some examples of a bona fide relationship: visiting relatives in the United States, attending a university or taking a job offer.
On a conference call Monday, lawyers who have fought the Trump administration argued that other refugees and travelers should also be allowed in because, like Dagoum, they often have ties to a nonprofit organization that has been helping them even before they land in the United States.
Representatives of some resettlement agencies said they were awaiting guidance from the State Department.
Although the department did not say Monday how it would interpret the ruling, it is conceivable that it will take a relatively narrow view of the phrase and argue that anyone without a family, university or employment tie can be barred.