The supreme court’s ruling that requires proof of a ‘bona fide relationship’ with someone in the US could split up families or result in a rejection of approved visa applicants ahead of the legal battle in the fall

Walking toward the arrivals hall at Dulles international airport on a typically busy evening, the Sadiq family might easily have been lost in the crowd.

But the emotion that overcame the three women, a mother and her two adult daughters, was apparent as they saw the small crowd assembled to greet them, holding signs that read: “Welcome to America.”

Shaz Sadiq, 42, wept as she embraced an old friend. Her sister, Rahila, 40, doubled over at the symbolic finish line of a long, contentious journey. The pair’s 72-year-old mother, Doris, was wide-eyed as she scanned the terminal from her wheelchair, before offering a kiss to the advocates who waited.

In Trump's America, immigrant families would be kept apart. He doesn't care | Sohaila Abdulali Read more

Just one week ago, the Sadiq family thought their dreams of building a new life in the US had been dashed, perhaps for good.

A 26 June ruling by the US supreme court put into effect elements of Donald Trump’s travel ban on refugees and immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries. Although Pakistan, the Sadiq family’s homeland, was not on the list of banned countries, the controversial policy placed a 120-day hold on all refugee admissions.

“It’s beyond to express or explain what we went through,” said Shaz, who confessed to having “mixed feelings” in the moment. Asked about the impact of not knowing whether the US would still open its doors to her family, she said: “My mother suffered major depression. My younger sister, she started to have panic attacks.

“It’s difficult for others to understand even that pain – when you are already a stateless person, going through so many insecurities, and then you are uncertain about your future and do not have any control of your own life.”

Hours after the Sadiqs touched down in Virginia, a federal judge in Hawaii rejected a motion seeking to limit the scope of Trump’s executive order. The ruling pointed to a long road ahead for immigration and human rights advocates. The months-long and tumultuous legal battle over Trump’s travel ban has already thrust many families like the Sadiqs into a state of limbo.

For the Sadiqs, the journey began well before Trump was elected. The Sadiqs are Christian, and fled their homeland after their father was killed in a church shooting and death threats became routine. In 2013, the Sadiq sisters moved to Bangkok. They spent four years navigating the grueling process of obtaining refugee status and applying for permanent resettlement in the US, which has one of the most stringent vetting systems in the world.

The supreme court will take up the travel ban again in the fall. In the meantime, it has instructed that visa applicants from the six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees must prove a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” before being approved for travel.

US travel ban will kick off 'summer of litigation', advocates warn Read more

A restrictive definition of “close family” means only those with a specific set of familial relations will be allowed into the country. Those seeking to prove a relationship with an entity must show a “formal, documented” relationship with an institution such as an employer or an educational institute.

Proving a “bona fide relationship” is likely to be particularly tough for refugees, who often have no ties to a country before arriving. The state department has said a “formal assurance” from a resettlement agency, such as the International Rescue Committee (IRC), will not count alone. This wording has left some resettlement groups unsure of where they stand.

Because the Sadiqs were processed prior to the supreme court’s ruling, they were not required to prove a “bona fide relationship” in the US. Had they been required to do so, their application might have been rejected.

The family’s only contact in the US was Kristin Kim Bart, senior director of gender equality at the IRC and an old friend for whom Shaz had worked as an interpreter, years ago in Pakistan. It is unlikely that friendship would past muster as a “bona fide relationship”, said Ruben Chandrasekar, executive director of the IRC’s Maryland office, which oversees the resettlement of roughly 1,300-1,400 refugees a year.

The travel ban makes for bad humanitarian policy and bad foreign policy Ruben Chandrasekar, IRC

“These are people that are fleeing unspeakable things,” said Kim Bart. “We have a responsibility as a country to help others and shelter others who aren’t fortunate to live in peaceful times.



“They’re regular people, they want a regular life.”



The IRC has vehemently opposed Trump’s travel ban since its first iteration was unveiled, in late January.

“From the very beginning, we have believed that the travel ban makes for bad humanitarian policy and bad foreign policy,” Chandrasekar told the Guardian. “We’re talking about people who are fleeing terror, fleeing violence and fleeing civil war.”

The term “bona fide relationship”, he said, was highly contested and made the already complex work of refugee resettlement groups more difficult.

“The supreme court’s guidance, we feel, has been interpreted very narrowly by the administration,” Chandrasekar said, noting the Trump administration had excluded grandparents from counting as a “bona fide relationship”.

“We hope that the administration will continue to expand its definition of what it means,” he said.

A senior administration spokesman was last week unable to provide examples of what might count as a “bona fide relationship” with a US entity. On Thursday, a state department spokesman told the Guardian claims would be assessed on a “case by case basis” and did not offer examples.

The spokesman confirmed that refugees scheduled to travel to the US “on or around” 12 July would still be allowed to enter the US without proving a “bona fide relationship”. The state department predicts that after 12 July, the US will have exceeded the 50,000 yearly refugee resettlement limit imposed by Trump’s travel ban. After this date, the spokesman said, any refugee entering the country will have to prove their ties to the US.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Shaista, center, and Rahila Sadiq, refugees from Pakistan, arrive at Dulles international airport outside Washington DC. Photograph: Sarah Stacke/IRC

Standing inside the terminal at Dulles, less than 30 miles from the White House, Shaz Sadiq called for a more humane approach to refugees. The administration has in the past expressed a preference for members of religious minorities, such as her family. Refugees, she said, should not be vilified whatever their background.

“Your life becomes like hell,” she said. “You are not a criminal, you are a victim. Someone should be there to take care of you.”

It would take a while for the Sadiq family to put their ordeal behind them, she said, but for now she was looking forward to stepping outside without the constant fear of being arrested by immigration authorities.

“We suffered a lot,” she said, pausing for a moment before allowing herself a laugh. “No more traumas.”