Washington, DC —

Tori dey say Trump administration dey consider to cancel reach 200,000 B1 and B2 visas wey relate to asylum claims wey still dey pending, and this news don attract attention wey pass the regular immigration policy circles.

The number sef big, but the main wahala na say e still dey unclear who visa holders go affected, under which criteria, and the timeline — palava wey the reports no explain finish.

If dem push this move, e no go only touch people wey dey seek asylum but e fit affect other people too: tourists wey get valid B2 visas and business travellers wey dey on B1 status. Both groups now dey face say one normal visa classification fit get unexpected consequences.

B1 visa na the one dem dey usually give business travellers, while B2 visa na the one dem dey give tourists.

Government dey justify am by saying people dey use the visas like loophole to enter the country and settle down while their asylum process dey go on. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau even call am 'fake asylum claims'.

Administration never give exact number of visas wey fit cancel, but the Associated Press talk say dem see State Department documents and US officials wey estimate am fit reach 200,000.

If dem do am, e go be the biggest mass visa revocation for US history, and e likely say people go challenge am legal.

Wetin be the consequences?

E good make person sabi say to revoke non-immigrant visa no mean say dem don terminate asylum case or claim. People wey enter the country with B1 or B2 visa and later apply for asylum normally dey get their legal status from the pending asylum case, no be from the original visa.

Based on that, the immediate impact on people wey get pending cases fit small. But the long-term consequences fit heavy.

Rut Bermejo Casado, Associate Professor for Rey Juan Carlos University wey dey research migration and asylum policies, tell TRT World say: 'Dem go lose their status as temporary visitors, but dem no go necessarily become immediately removable just because dem cancel their visa. Their right to pursue an asylum application go normally remain until dem finish adjudication.'

Even so, the move fit still get consequences, including legal wahala, because e fit cause litigation about whether the administration dey punish people for exercising their rights wey US asylum law dey protect.

For the asylum seekers, many people dey depend only on their cases for legal status, and if dem dismiss those cases, dem no go get legal status for the country.

The measure fit still get symbolic meaning: e fit show say government dey ready to treat post-entry asylum claims as sign say temporary visas no use the way dem suppose use am.

Like Bermejo Casado, wey dey also serve as non-resident senior fellow for the Elcano Royal Institute, talk: 'For that sense, the policy fit be more intended as a "deterrent" and political statement than as a way to make immediate deportation.'

Wetin past examples dey show?

For the United States, dem don do mass visa revocations before.

In 1979, during the Iran hostage crisis, then-president Jimmy Carter issue order wey dem call Executive Order 12172 wey give Secretary of State and Attorney General power to limit or create exceptions for Iranian nationals wey get non-immigrant visas.

That administration finally invalidate some visas and tell over 50,000 Iranian students make dem report to immigration authorities for December of the same year to verify their status or dem go face immediate deportation.

One federal appeals court reportedly support the administration right to single out Iranian students for that action.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Department of Justice start one initiative to locate, interview, and deport about 314,000 'absconders' — foreign nationals wey remain for the US despite final deportation orders.

But instead of pursue that number equally, the George W. Bush administration prioritised people from the Middle East and South Asia.

Bermejo Casado say: 'The closest comparisons probably na policies wey try discourage asylum applications wey governments see as abusive or opportunistic.'

For the past 20 years, Australia don introduce different measures wey aim to deter asylum claims after arrival. Some European governments sef don do reforms wey try limit access to protection procedures.

However, those measures normally focus on procedural restrictions, offshore processing, or accelerated removal mechanisms, rather than mass retroactive visa revocations, Bermejo Casado add.

How dem fit challenge am?

Almost every similar action before don face legal challenge, although courts for many of those cases uphold the actions.

If this one happen too, expect say e go face challenges, especially because immigration and asylum rights dey protected by US law and international obligations.

Even though the Executive Branch get wide authority on the matter, courts fit still be asked to consider issues like right to fair hearing (due process).

There fit also be administrative hurdles, and, as Bermejo Casado point out, 'people wey dey flee serious insecurity or political persecution fit still try to seek protection despite extra obstacles.'

Short story: the immediate impact of this move fit be limited, because e no go stop asylum seekers from pursuing their claims. But for long-term, e fit matter well because e show government wan take tougher stance against irregular migration.