Three University of Iowa international students whose visas were revoked by the federal government earlier this month warned they would be deported to “countries other than their countries of origin,” according to a federal complaint filed by the students Monday.
Five UI international students have had their visas revoked, according to the Campaign to Organize Graduate Students. Four of the students filed a federal complaint against the government Monday for terminating their visa status without explanation.
According to the lawsuit, three of the students received identical messages from U.S. embassies, warning them that if they stay in the U.S. they risk fines, detention, and/or deportation.
The message from the embassies gave “further warning that ‘deportation can take place at a time that does not allow the person being deported to secure possession or conclude affairs in the United States. Persons being deported may be sent to countries other than their countries of origin,’” according to the lawsuit.
The complaint was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the Department of Homeland Security, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and Acting Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons.
In the complaint, the UI students argue they have not done anything to violate their student status, have not committed serious criminal offenses, and remained in good academic standing since beginning their studies in the U.S.
There are four circumstances under which the U.S. State Department can revoke a visa, according to its website. The first is not listed; the individual is not eligible for the visa classification, the visa has been physically removed from the passport in which it was issued, thee individual has been flagged by the DHS’s Automated Biometric Identification System and added to a watch list for an arrest or conviction of driving under the influence, driving while intoxicated, or similar arrests/convictions that occurred within the previous five years.
The UI students argue the government did not communicate the SEVIS termination in their complaint. They were informed on April 10 by the university that their status had been terminated and the university had not initiated the action and was not aware of any violation by the students.
The lawsuit asks the court to place a restraining order and injunctions against the revocation, which would restore their student statuses and prevent deportation from the U.S.
“By terminating plaintiffs’ (Student and Exchange Visitor Information Systems, or SEVIS) records, DHS has effectively ended their student statues,” the lawsuit reads. “By forcing them out of status, DHS has created pretext for future adverse immigration actions against them.”
This has created emotional and financial hardship for the students, the lawsuit argues.
“Plaintiffs are now experiencing intense mental and financial suffering because they cannot continue with their studies and fear being detained and deported if they do so,” the lawsuit reads.
Within the past two weeks, more than 1,500 students have had a sudden or unexpected change to their Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS, listing or their visa status, according to data compiled by Inside Higher Ed.
The data reveals nine Iowa college students have had their SEVIS or visa status changed — two from Iowa State University, five from the UI, and two from Mount Mercy University.
Revoking international student visas is part of President Donald Trump’s aim to deport those who participated in pro-Palestine protests, which has expanded to revoking visas for minor infractions.
Nationally, students who have had their visas revoked have brought the issue to court. A federal district judge in Georgia issued a temporary restraining order Friday to block the termination of 133 international students’ legal status.
The lawsuit filed in Iowa Monday argues the SEVIS terminations are without legal justification.
“They come without regard to constitutional guarantees of procedural due process,” the lawsuit reads. “They are far beyond the DHS’ statutory authority, and they fail to comply with even DHS’ own regulations.”