10
Loading video...
By Billal Rahman
Immigration Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Trump administration faces a proposed class action seeking to halt policies that have frozen green card applications for thousands of refugees already admitted to the United States and subjected some to renewed scrutiny of their original refugee claims.
The lawsuit, filed Monday by six refugee organizations and four individual refugees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, challenges three Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies: an indefinite hold on certain refugees' applications for lawful permanent residence, a program to re-vet refugees admitted during the Biden administration, and a new rule reducing the time refugees have to respond to proposed termination of their refugee status from 30 days to 10.
The plaintiffs argue that the three policies violate federal immigration and administrative law and constitutional due-process protections. The plaintiffs simultaneously asked the court for emergency relief, including an immediate administrative stay of the new 10-day termination rule. They said at least one refugee had already received a termination notice under the new system and could lose refugee status while the court considers the wider challenge.
Read More on News
...
Newsweek contacted USCIS and its parent agency, DHS, for comment via email outside office hours.
What the Plaintiffs Are Seeking
The plaintiffs want the court to block the three policies while the case proceeds and ultimately set them aside. They are also asking the court to certify a nationwide class consisting of people admitted to the United States as refugees who had not adjusted to lawful permanent resident status as of October 14, 2026, or afterward. They say the group numbers in the tens of thousands. The court has not yet certified the class.
The four individual plaintiffs are:
- Lida A., a 27-year-old Afghan refugee living in Massachusetts who worked for a U.S.-funded organization before fleeing after the Taliban takeover.
- Abdi B., a 39-year-old Ethiopian refugee living in Minnesota who was detained during Operation PARRIS in January and transferred to Texas before a federal court ordered his release.
- Julio C., a 26-year-old Colombian refugee living in Texas who relies on Medicaid for HIV medication.
- Firas D., a 23-year-old Iraqi refugee living in Texas who was arrested in Iraq because of his sexual orientation.
All four have applied for permanent residence and are awaiting decisions, according to court filings.
The six organizations also serving as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, Jewish Family Service of Western Massachusetts, International Institute of New England, African Communities Together, HIAS and Refugee Council USA.
The case challenges a November 21, 2025, USCIS policy memorandum that placed pending green card applications from refugees admitted between January 20, 2021, and February 20, 2025, on hold and called for a review and potential re-interviews of refugees admitted during that period. The memorandum said the measures were intended to reassess whether those refugees met the refugee definition when admitted and cited national security and public safety concerns. The plaintiffs argue the agency has not substantiated broader concerns about refugees vetted and admitted during the period.
"The Trump-Vance administration is trapping refugees in cruel legal limbo by blocking their path to permanent residency while simultaneously making it easier to strip them of their lawful status and the protections they are eligible for," Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, told Newsweek. "These inhumane and unlawful policies violate fundamental due process protections, and we are going to court to stop them."
...
Changes to US Refugee Policy Under Trump
DHS has estimated that about 113,000 refugees have pending adjustment applications, according to the plaintiffs' filings. USCIS data cited in the original complaint show the agency adjudicated 121 refugee adjustment applications between January and March this year, compared with 17,569 during the same period in 2025. The 121 figure includes cases outside the population covered by the November hold.
Before that change, the average processing time for refugee adjustment applications was 7.8 months in the third quarter of 2025, according to court filings.
Under federal law, refugees must have been physically present in the United States for at least one year to qualify for lawful permanent residence and must undergo an examination to determine their admissibility. The plaintiffs argue that the government can examine admissibility during that process but does not have authority to impose a categorical, indefinite hold or require an entire group of already-admitted refugees to undergo re-vetting.
The policies are part of wider changes to refugee policy during President Donald Trump's second administration. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order suspending entry through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and decisions on refugee applications. A separate executive order called for additional identification safeguards for refugees and stateless people seeking admission.
The administration subsequently established a program for white South Africans. Trump's fiscal 2026 refugee determination initially set an admissions ceiling of 7,500, with admissions "primarily" allocated to Afrikaners. A May 2026 determination increased the maximum by 10,000.
How Operation PARRIS Unfolded
The policies challenged in the Massachusetts lawsuit primarily concern refugees who have already been admitted to the United States.
In January, USCIS launched Operation PARRIS (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening) in Minnesota, initially focusing on 5,600 refugees without green cards and subjecting cases to new background checks and verification. Court filings say some refugees were arrested and transported to Texas for interviews about their original refugee applications. A Minnesota judge subsequently blocked detention based on refugees' unadjusted status, and a Massachusetts federal court in March stayed a later nationwide refugee detention policy as separate litigation proceeded.
On October 14, DHS issued an interim final rule cutting the period for responding to a Notice of Intent to Terminate refugee status from 30 days to 10 days, changing a procedure that had been in place for about 45 years.
DHS said the change was intended to "restore integrity to the immigration system, mitigate risks to national security and public safety, and prevent fraud and exploitation." The rule took effect immediately while DHS opened a 30-day public comment period.
DHS estimates that about 186,000 refugee cases admitted from fiscal 2015 through fiscal 2025 remain unadjusted and could be subject to the termination rule.
According to the plaintiffs, USCIS issued at least one notice under the new rule on October 15, the day after it took effect. It was delivered to the refugee on October 19. The plaintiffs argue that 10 days may not provide enough time to obtain counsel, interpreters and records needed to respond. They note that the median USCIS processing time for a simple Freedom of Information Act request was 27 days in 2025.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Matthew Cannon and Shakeema Edwards.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines