This petition respectfully calls upon the appropriate authorities of the United States, including the U.S. Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to ensure the transparent and consistent application of U.S. immigration laws and institutional vetting standards in cases that raise legitimate public interest.

Publicly available information indicates that Zahra (Yazdi) Takhshid, currently affiliated with U.S. academic institutions in the field of law and technology, is reported to be related to Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, a former senior official within the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ayatollah Yazdi was part of Iran’s post-1979 governing structure and has been associated with institutions operating under the authority of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. Individuals and entities linked to this governing structure have been subject to U.S. sanctions frameworks.

The United States has formally designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  This designation reflects the U.S. government’s determination that the IRGC has been involved in activities including support for terrorism and destabilizing operations. Additionally, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, through the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), has implemented sanctions under authorities such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Executive Orders including E.O. 13224 and E.O. 13876, which target individuals and entities connected to Iran’s leadership structure and security apparatus.

Beyond the United States, allied jurisdictions have taken similar positions. For example, Canada has formally listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity under its Criminal Code, reinforcing the international concern regarding the organization’s activities.

This petition does not assert wrongdoing by Ms. Takhshid. However, it raises an important and legitimate policy question: how are U.S. immigration laws and institutional vetting standards applied in cases where publicly reported affiliations or familial connections intersect with sanctioned or designated structures?

Under U.S. law, immigration eligibility and admissibility are governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act, including provisions under:

• 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (Inadmissible Aliens)
• 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (Deportable Aliens)

These provisions address national security concerns, misrepresentation, and other factors relevant to immigration eligibility. This petition seeks confirmation that all applicable legal requirements—particularly those related to disclosure, admissibility, and compliance—are being applied consistently and transparently.

In parallel, U.S. academic institutions—especially those engaged in advanced research—are expected to adhere to federal compliance frameworks, including:

• Export Administration Regulations (EAR)
• International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)

These frameworks are designed to ensure that sensitive knowledge, research environments, and institutional access are governed by strict compliance and risk management standards.

Requested Actions
In light of the above, this petition respectfully calls for the following actions:

1. Transparency and Legal Clarification

Provide a clear explanation of how immigration eligibility, disclosure requirements, and admissibility assessments have been applied in this case, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1182 and § 1227), within the limits of applicable privacy laws.

2. Formal Review of Compliance with U.S. Law

Conduct a fair and impartial review by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State to confirm that all applicable legal requirements—particularly those related to admissibility, disclosure, and national security considerations—have been properly applied in this specific case.

3. Institutional Vetting and Regulatory Compliance Assurance

Confirm that the relevant academic institutions have followed appropriate vetting, compliance, and risk management procedures in relation to this appointment, consistent with federal standards, including EAR and ITAR where applicable.

4. Policy Consistency and Sanctions Framework Alignment
Clarify how publicly reported affiliations or connections to sanctioned individuals or structures are evaluated in cases such as this, under U.S. sanctions frameworks administered through IEEPA and relevant Executive Orders (e.g., 13224, 13876).