Judge considering relief to students whose immigration status was terminated

“It does seem there is agreement I could grant some limited temporary relief. It’s my inclination to do that, I just need to figure out the contours of it,” Calvert said.

The federal government, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney R. David Powell, argued against the restraining order, saying the students were not as risk of “irreparable harm.” Powell suggested that students could have their academic credits transferred to a school in their home country or perhaps in Canada. Additionally, he said the students could apply to have their immigration status reinstated.

The 133 individuals from universities across the country, including 27 who live in Georgia, are among the hundreds if not thousands nationally who face risk of deportation. The legal dispute is one of several points of contention between the White House and some students and higher education leaders in recent weeks. On Thursday, a few dozen Kennesaw State University students held a rally on the campus green in part to support students facing visa revocation and deportation. Before more than 100 people were added to the lawsuit, the original complaint included 17 names, seven of whom were students or recent graduates of the University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kennesaw State and Emory universities.

While a number of similar lawsuits have found success in other states, such as New Hampshire and Montana, each has only included a handful of students. With such a large number of plaintiffs in the Georgia lawsuit, the federal judge’s ultimate decision could set a precedent for other courts.

On Thursday morning, Atlanta immigration attorney Charles Kuck said that while many of the plaintiffs have traffic violations, none have criminal records and none have violated the rules that dictate immigration status. And even if they did, he said the law requires the federal government to follow a series of steps before terminating a student’s immigration status, an action that makes individuals eligible for deportation.

“If our clients are deportable, great. But there’s a process,” Kuck said in court. “We don’t believe any of our clients are actually deportable.”

After Powell suggested students could have their credits transferred or apply for reinstatement, Calvert said transferring credits takes time and that, according to the filed complaint, the students had not received advance notice of the terminations nor received specific explanations for them. “It sounds like they’d be guessing what the reason (of termination) is,” Calvert said.

Kuck was unpersuaded that the plaintiffs could successfully apply for status reinstatement. “How do you reinstate if you don’t know what you did? This is why due process is kind of important,” he said outside the courthouse after the hearing.

As the hearing went on, Powell asked if the court were to issue the restraining order that it limit it to the original plaintiffs. Kuck told the judge he added additional plaintiffs because it was more efficient for the courts and for the students. “College students aren’t rolling in money. Lawyers aren’t cheap,” Kuck said.

While the plaintiffs include current students, some of whom are set to graduate in a few weeks, it also includes recent alumni who are completing postgraduate training. Powell asked that the court not grant relief to those individuals, arguing the monetary harm they’d face by losing their employment was not irreparable.

Asked what harm the federal government would face if the restraining order was granted, Powell responded, “The major harm would be interference in the executive’s right to control immigration.”

Powell asked for a Friday midnight deadline to file additional documents. Shortly after that, Calvert is expected to make a decision.

Calvert said she wanted to proceed cautiously before making a ruling, mindful that it could impact similar cases in other states. “I think whatever I do will be considered by other judges,” she said.