China Temporarily Bans Certain Foreigners From Entry
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.27.20
On March 26, 2020, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China (“MFA”) announced a decision to temporarily suspend entry into China by foreign nationals holding valid visas or residence permits (including APEC Business Travel Cards) as a preventative measure against the COVID-19 pandemic starting from midnight, March 28, 2020.
The announcement lists the specific categories of visas affected (above). However, those who enter with the visas listed below will not be affected:
- Diplomatic, service, courtesy or C visas.
- Entry with new visas, specifically those issued after this announcement.
Meanwhile, the MFA has confirmed that foreign nationals affected may apply for new visas at Chinese embassies or consulates for necessary economic, trade, scientific or technological activities or based on emergency humanitarian need.
The announcement does not indicate the expiration date of the suspension. According to the MFA, the suspension is a temporary measure that China is compelled to take considering the pandemic and the varied practices of other countries. The measures will be calibrated in view of the evolving situation and revised or updated accordingly.
Because some employees with valid work permits may not be able to enter China from March 28 due to the suspension, employers will need to prepare to make alternative work arrangements for expat workers who may be trying to return to China.
For the text of the official announcement from MFA, please go to:
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
