U.S. officials denied a visa to a Harvard postdoctoral student on a Friday morning, referencing President Donald Trump’s recent proclamation that barred international students from entering the United States to attend Harvard. This action came despite a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs just the day before, which had been requested by Harvard itself.
The denial occurred in a critical timeframe, less than an hour after Judge Burroughs had granted her order. Notably, this denial seemed to contradict the protection offered by the TRO.
According to an internal cable obtained by the Washington Post, less than an hour prior to Burroughs’ ruling, the State Department had instructed consulates and embassies to reject visa applications from students aiming to study at Harvard unless they qualified for another method of entry to the country. However, this directive was quickly rescinded the following evening, allowing consulates to resume processing visa applications for Harvard.
In the 24-hour interim period between the issuance of the TRO and the revised State Department directive, at least one postdoctoral scholar was notified of their visa ineligibility based on Trump’s proclamation. Upon arriving at the American consulate in Europe for a J-1 visa extension interview, the postdoc received a refusal notice. The refusal was reviewed by The Crimson, which confirmed that the reason for ineligibility was based on the recent proclamation from the Trump administration.
Despite the postdoc informing the consular officer about the restraining order, their visa application was still denied.
The Crimson has so far been unable to confirm if other students faced similar refusals during this narrow window or if any additional applicants were impacted after the State Department’s second cable.
“This unquestionably violates the TRO,” stated Ian A. Campbell, an immigration lawyer, in a message. “It is possible that the Trump administration is intentionally ignoring the lower court’s TRO, even though the legitimacy of these orders has been consistently upheld.”
Attempts to reach a comment from Harvard’s spokesperson were unsuccessful, and a State Department representative did not respond by late Saturday afternoon.
If enforced, Trump’s proclamation would halt Harvard’s capacity to host international students under F, M, and J visa categories, and put many current students at risk of visa revocation. Currently, more than 7,000 international students are enrolled at Harvard.
The J-1 visas, which the postdoc was applying for, are designed for scholars participating in work- and study-related exchange programs, while F-1 visas are designated for regular international students. Harvard does not sponsor M visas, which are for international students seeking vocational training.
Trump’s proclamation was the latest effort by his administration to restrict international student admission to Harvard. On May 22, the Department of Homeland Security withdrew Harvard’s certification from the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, which permits the enrollment of international students. Harvard promptly filed a lawsuit, leading to the issuance of a TRO from Burroughs within hours. This order has since been extended until at least June 20.
Despite the TRO, international students at Harvard reported continued obstacles in securing their visas. Harvard’s amended complaint outlined at least ten incoming students and scholars who faced visa refusals for administrative processing shortly after the revocation of SEVP certification on May 22.
The complaint detailed specific instances from various cities, including São Paulo, Prague, Bern, and Milan, where visa applications were denied on May 23. Refusals persisted even after the TRO was issued by Burroughs.
For instance, an incoming Harvard College freshman from South Asia faced a visa refusal on June 6, amidst ongoing reports from other students that their applications were similarly moved to an indefinite administrative processing stage. Administrative processing can last indefinitely, thus leaving students with no clear timeline for resolution.
In this case, the South Asian student’s visa application was initially refused under section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, allowing consular officers to withhold visas pending further proof of eligibility to enter the U.S.
Jeff Joseph, the president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, expressed concerns that the Trump administration is leveraging these processing delays as a means to circumvent the temporary restraining order. Since administrative processing does not culminate in a formal denial, it allows the consulate to avoid immediate judicial scrutiny.
“Because there is no final order, there is nothing for a federal court to review,” Joseph explained in an email. “My prediction is that these cases languish in administrative processing forever.”
He further stated that once there is a denial with any form of rational justification, it becomes shielded from judicial review, enabling the consulate to delay and eventually deny applications while evading the order.
Unlike the South Asian student, the European student who received a visa denial on that Friday was informed that their ineligibility stemmed from section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants the president authority to suspend noncitizen entry based on perceived national interest, according to Trump’s proclamation.
The denial on these grounds, following Burroughs’s TRO, raises significant questions about adherence to federal court orders.
Even though the TRO does not represent a final ruling in the case, there remains the possibility that Burroughs or a higher court may allow either the SEVP revocation or Trump’s proclamation to be reinstated.
Additionally, even with limitations placed on the administration’s ability to block visas strictly due to Harvard connections, the scrutiny of Harvard affiliates has intensified. This includes evaluating their social media accounts, which has already caused delays for students trying to enter the U.S.
The Trump administration has had a history of brushing against the boundaries of legal directives from the courts. Federal judges previously accused administration officials of failing to comply with a restraining order against a broad freeze on federal grants and loans earlier this year, and again in April for not reinstating deported Venezuelan migrants to the U.S.
Both Trump and Vice President JD Vance have asserted that the executive branch can operate independently of the judiciary’s authority, with Trump stating in February, “Judges should be ruling. They shouldn’t be dictating what you’re supposed to be doing.”
In conclusion, the intersection of immigration policy, judicial authority, and international academic exchange remains a contentious and evolving issue during this administration, raising pressing questions about the future of international students at institutions like Harvard.
image source from：https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/6/8/visa-denied-after-tro/
