Connect with us

National

New hope for bi-national gay couples

ICE closes proceedings against gay Venezuelan national

Published

on

Henry Velandia (right) and his spouse, Josh Vandiver (photo courtesy Lavi Soloway)

LGBT advocates working on immigration issues are hoping the cancelled deportation this week of a gay foreign national living in the United States could be promising news for bi-national same-sex couples in danger of separation.

On Wednesday, Henry Velandia, a gay Venezuelan national, and his spouse, Josh Vandiver, a U.S. citizen, received formal notification from U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement saying the agency would no longer pursue deportation proceedings against Velandia.

After coming to the United States in 2002 legally on a visitor’s visa, Velandia faced potential deportation after he remained in the United States after his visa expired in six months.

To allow him to remain in the United States, Vandiver sought to obtain a green card for his spouse, whom he legally married Connecticut, through a marriage-based application. However, ICE had informed the couple the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, prevented the agency from issuing Velandia a green card.

On May 6, Velandia faced a hearing before an immigration judge, who could have ordered deportation, separating him from Vandiver for at least 10 years. However, Riefkohl halted deportation proceedings against Velandia because of a recent order that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued on the previous day to vacate similar deportation proceedings in the case for another New York same-sex bi-national couple.

The notification that the couple received on Wednesday closes the deportation proceedings and marks the first time ICE has administratively closed the such proceedings against the spouse of a gay U.S. citizen.

In a statement provided to the Washington Blade, Vandiver said the notification of the decision on Wednesday was “the second happiest day of my life, second only to the day Henry became my husband.”

“On Wednesday, Henry and I learned that the government was no longer trying to tear us apart and destroy our marriage,” Vandiver said. “Now we can start building our future together. This is the fruit of a hard-fought struggle over the past year to bring recognition to the terrible harm DOMA is causing same-sex binational couples.”

“Wednesday’s decision closing Henry’s deportation case is the first sign of hope that these deportations are finally ending and it’s our deepest hope that it has a positive impact across the country for all couples like us,” Vandiver added.

The new development has LGBT rights supporters working on immigration issues looking to the Velandia case and Vandiver to have an impact to help other deportation proceedings facing bi-national same-sex couples living in the United States.

Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, also said his organization intends to press the administration to make sure other couples that are facing similar separation under immigration law are treated the same as Velandia and Vandiver.

“We have married bi-national couples in places like Vermont, New York and California that are facing separation before the end of this summer,” Ralls said. “We expect that ICE’s message in Henry and Josh’s case is they are no longer prioritizing the deportation of gay spouses and we expect other couples to receive the same treatment.”

Lavi Soloway, a New York-based immigration lawyer who handled Velandia’s case, said the decision to close proceedings in this situation shows the administration has leeway to stop deportations in similar cases.

Soloway, founder of Stop the Deportations, said he plans to draw on the Velandia decision when he appears in a San Francisco immigration court on July 13 to stop the potential deportation of another foreign national, Alex Benshimol, who married his partner Douglas Gentry.

“It demonstrates the ability of ICE to use its prosecutorial guidelines to protect bi-national couples from being torn apart by deportation,” Soloway said. “The circumstances are very similar.”

But whether this case will have an impact on others remains to be seen. Gillian Anderson, an ICE spokesperson, confirmed that her agency filed a motion to close proceedings in the Velandia case, but maintained her agency continues to enforce the law.

“There has been no change in policy with regards to deportation cases affected by the Defense of Marriage Act,” she said. “Pursuant to the Attorney General’s guidance, the Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect and the executive branch, including [the Department of Homeland Security], will continue to enforce it unless and until Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial determination that it is unconstitutional.”

Observers say the decision to close proceedings in the Velandia case could be related to a memo ICE issued on June 17 listing situations in which enforcement agents may decide to exercise prosecutorial authority and dropped proceedings against undocumented immigrants living in the United States.

While the memo doesn’t explicitly offer protections to gay couples, it states undocumented immigrants with “family relationships” in the United States, or individuals with a “U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse” may be considered for discretion.

Ralls said the similar timing of the distribution of the memo and the decision to terminate proceedings against Velandia was noteworthy and said it could mark an “unofficial” change in administration policy.

“I believe we’re beginning to see some dots being connected that can lead us to the assumption that there is now an unofficial policy that the White House does not want to see these couples torn apart,” Ralls said. “I certainly hope that’s the case, and more and more, I think we’re seeing a gradual evolution leading in that direction.”

But Soloway said the new guidelines are similar to memos that were already in place even before the Obama administration emphasizing the deportation of criminals and others who would endanger the safety of Americans should be a priority as opposed to law-abiding immigrants or immigrants that have family relationships in the United States.

“So the June 17 memo is a clarification that really gives much more detailed guidance than we had previously, but there’s no departure in the June 17 memo from the existing guidelines,” Soloway said. “It just offers more examples and a little bit more guidance than what previously existed.”

Even with ICE agents allowed to exercise prosecutorial authority to discontinue deportation proceedings against gay foreign nationals in relationships with U.S. citizens, LGBT immigration groups are still seeking a blanket moratorium on these proceedings to ensure they stay together in the United States.

Ralls said the Obama administration has already set a precedent to suspend deportations of undocumented immigrants in relationships with U.S. citizens. In 2009, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano granted deferred action to undocumented immigrant widows who were married to U.S. citizens for fewer than two years before to their spouse’s death.

“They should receive explicit direction from the White House to [issue a moratorium], and we’re not going to step back from that call until we have an assurance that none of the families in this situation will be torn apart,” Ralls said.

Soloway said the memos on exercising prosecutorial authority are helpful and offers the U.S. government “the opportunity to do the right thing on a case-by-case basis,” but still isn’t the more clearly articulated moratorium that LGBT advocates are seeking.

“Nobody’s fate should be subject to the discretion of a specific ICE officer or agent,” Soloway said. “There should be a policy coming the administration that specifies that these deportations should be halted.”

The fight to obtain this moratorium could be an uphill battle. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has indicated that President Obama believes legislative action on immigration issues is needed — as opposed to a moratorium — and “he can’t just wave a wand and change the law.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular