'Nothing Called Self-Deportation': Facts vs Myths in Ranjani Srinivasan's Case
Could US officials have arrested Srinivasan if she hadn't left the country? We decode the legal facets of the case.
advertisement
"I've been an immigration lawyer for over 30 years, but I've never seen such things happening before."
It's been around two weeks since Ranjani Srinivasan, a 37-year-old Indian-origin student, left the US after her F-1 student visa was revoked by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Srinivasan, a Columbia University student, left for Canada to avoid facing action from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, who accused her of participating in pro-Palestine protests in the university campus last year and supporting Hamas – which has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US government.
In this article, The Quint decodes the legal facets of Srinivasan's case.
Facts of the Case vs Speculation
First, one must distinguish between the facts of Srinivasan's case and the allegations made against her by US law enforcement.
Fact No. 1: The US Department of State cancelled Srinivasan's student visa on 5 March.
Speculation No. 1: The reason behind the cancellation of her student visa was her 'support for Hamas'.
Cutting through the jargon: No evidence has come to the fore that Srinivasan was engaged in activities supporting Hamas. Speaking to The New York Times, the student said that she wasn't even part of the protests on campus and was returning to her dorm after a day out with friends when she was detained along with around 100 other students.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government. In other words, the right to protest is a sacrosanct part of US law.
"Even if Srinivasan was part of the protest, that comes under the exercise of free speech. Most students were protesting against innocent people being killed, rather than expressing support for Hamas," Glenn Fogle, a US-based immigration lawyer, said while speaking to The Quint.
The right to freedom of protest, however, isn't unlimited and can be curbed under a few circumstances:
Incitement of violence
Blocking traffic or public places
Harassment or intimidation
Protesting on someone's private property without their consent
Engaging in unlawful activities while protesting
Refusing to disperse from private property
Srinivasan was issued two court summonses: one for the obstruction of traffic and another for refusing to disperse from the protest site, which is a privately-owned institution, and hence private property.
While the case against her was dismissed and did not lead to a criminal record, these two charges were key in the cancellation of her student visa, as we shall see later in the article.
"It all boils down to the characterisation of what she did," Fogle said.
Fact No. 2: Srinivasan left the US on 11 March and went to Canada.
Speculation No. 2: Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem claimed that Srinivasan "self-deported" from the US through the CBP Home app, a new mobile application launched by the Donald Trump government on 10 March. The app allows illegal immigrants to "submit their intent to depart" the US to avoid the risk of arrest or deportation by law enforcement through its "self-deportation" facility.
Cutting through the jargon: No evidence has come to the fore that Srinivasan actually 'self-deported' from the US using the app. In fact, Srinivasan's lawyer said that she booked a flight out of the country to comply with the 15-day deadline given to her by the DHS to leave after her student visa was revoked.
"The fact that DHS falsely claims that she 'self-deported' via the CBP Home app only underscores that the administration's targeting of her is built on fabrications, not facts," Srinivasan's lawyer Nathan Yaffe told CNN.
The DHS' allegations have also highlighted the issue of "self-deportation", a term that has come into frequent use especially after the launch of the app.
However, Dahlia French, a Texas-based immigration lawyer, says that there is nothing known as "self-deportation" in US law.
"There's no legal or congressional term called 'self-deporting'. In order for someone to get deported, a judge needs to order them to be deported while they're undergoing immigration proceedings," French told The Quint.
Meanwhile, speaking about the CBP Home App, lawyers say that it is nothing but a way of giving immigrants false hope under the guise of assuring them a pathway back to the country.
"They're trying to trick people into 'self-deporting'. They're saying to them, just deport yourself and it'll be easier for you to come back to the US in the future — which is complete nonsense. It's just a sneaky trick by the government to get immigrants out of the country," Fogle said.
Would Srinivasan Have Faced Arrest If She Hadn't Left the US?
As mentioned earlier in the article, Srinivasan faced two summonses in connection with the Columbia protests: one for the obstruction of traffic and another for refusing to disperse from the protest site. However, the summonses were subsequently dropped and did not lead to a criminal record attached to her.
A few months after the protest, however, when Srinivasan was getting her student visa renewed, she did not report that these two summonses had been issued against her – and that's what did her in.
This begs two important questions:
1. With what intention did the ICE agents show up to her doorstep?
2. What would have happened if she'd have come face-to-face with the agents?
According to immigration lawyers, the fact that ICE agents came to her dorm implies that they were building a case to declare her 'persona non grata' (unwelcome in the country any longer).
"If Srinivasan would have answered the door, they'd have arrested her without a doubt. So, it was wise of her to leave on her own," says Glenn Fogle. "I don't blame her for doing what she did. If she'd have come to me for a legal consultation, I'd have asked her to leave the country as well."
Yet another question is whether she was legally obligated to report the two summonses issued against her while renewing her visa, and whether they'd have had any bearing on her legal status in the US.
Srinivasan's Legal Options
Now in Canada, Srinivasan is faced with an uncertain future. While the doctoral student was supposed to graduate this year from Columbia University, she now faces the prospect of dropping out.
However, there is no reason to believe that Srinivasan will never be allowed to enter the US. It all boils down to the next legal steps she takes and the administration which is in power when she decides to take those steps.
In that case, Srinivasan may apply for a non-immigrant visa waiver. What the waiver does is, if for whatever reason a visa applicant is inadmissible in the country, it petitions the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to waive the ground of inadmissibility and allow them to return to the country.
"Ideally, Srinivasan should wait for five years instead of three before re-applying for her visa. Hopefully the US will be under a different administration by then and things will go back to some sense of normal behaviour. It might be in her best interest to wait until this government is no longer in power," Dahlia French told The Quint.
In the meantime, however, Srinivasan will have to remain outside the US. While there is an open-border agreement between the US and Canada, it only extends to citizens of either country or those who possess a green card. Srinivasan, who has an Indian passport, will not be able to stay in Canada indefinitely, unless particularly permitted to do so. The fact that she went to Canada from the US implies that she had a visa to visit Canada.
There is a doctrine in US immigration law called consular non-reviewability, according to which a decision made by US consular officers cannot be challenged in courts of law. According to the doctrine, when somebody's US visa is revoked i.e. they become an "alien" in the eyes of US law, they do not have jurisdiction in the US anymore and are thus denied the right to sue the government.
"US consulates are basically a law unto themselves, they can do whatever they want," Glenn Fogle told The Quint. "If Srinivasan was in the US, she'd have more legal rights than she does while being on the outside."
Meanwhile, a lot has been said about the severity of the crackdown being exercised by the Donald Trump government on students in the US, apart from illegal immigrants.
While ICE maintains what is called a SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) record to track and monitor the legal status of immigrant students in the US, immigration lawyers argue that such a crackdown against students is unprecedented.
"It's very different under this new administration," Dahlia French tells The Quint.
(The Quint has reached out to Columbia University's Office of Public Affairs for a statement on Ranjani Srinivasan's student status. This article will be updated as and when they respond.)