Recent policy news

In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that the federal law prevents judges from reviewing how the executive branch makes decisions on TPS determinations. This ruling immediately clears the way for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to end TPS protections for Haitians and Syrians, but it also establishes a broader legal precedent that federal courts do not have the authority to review, delay, or overturn any future TPS terminations, granting the executive branch full control over how the status is administered. The justices also rejected arguments that the administration’s decision to terminate TPS for Haitians was motivated by racial discrimination.

The decision comes as the U.S. Department of State maintains a Level 4: Do Not Travel advisory for Haiti due to ongoing risks including kidnapping, violent crime, civil unrest, and limited access to healthcare. The United Nations estimates that gangs control up to 90% of Port-au-Prince, Haiti’s capital, and that gang violence has killed more than 2,300 people in Haiti since the beginning of this year.

In June 2025, the Trump administration announced that it would end TPS for Haiti on Sept. 2, 2025, ahead of its scheduled Feb. 3, 2026, expiration date, citing improved conditions in the country. A federal judge later halted the decision, finding that DHS had likely acted unlawfully by ignoring protections that ensure recipients receive sufficient notice, including provisions that prohibit termination before a previously approved extension period has expired.

The case then went up to the Supreme Court. During arguments heard on April 29, 2026, the administration maintained that TPS determinations fall within the executive branch’s authority—particularly because of their connection to foreign policy—and should not be broadly reviewed by courts. Challengers argued the termination violated administrative law, pointing to concerns that the government failed to properly assess current conditions in Haiti and did not follow required procedures. They also cited evidence raised in lower courts suggesting potential racial bias. On June 25, the Supreme Court determined that under federal law, courts have no authority to review or postpone these programmatic terminations—allowing for TPS for Haitians and Syrians to come to an end. While it is not yet clear when DHS will actually terminate TPS status for Haitians and Syrians, existing protections are technically valid through July 1, 2026.

This ruling affects more than 350,000 Haitians who are living and working in the U.S. under TPS. For Haitians like Maryse Balthazar, who has lived in the U.S. for 16 years, the decision brings renewed uncertainty and the possibility of returning to a country still grappling with severe instability and gang violence. It also affects countless families‚ including those with U.S. citizen children, like Harlaine Dominique, a travel nurse and mother to a 16-month-old baby, who now face the possibility of separation.

Beyond the impact on individual families, Haitian TPS holders contribute an estimated $5.8 billion to the U.S. economy and pay $1.5 billion in taxes each year, while working in critical industries including healthcare, hospitality, food services, and other essential sectors. The sudden loss of this workforce could have significant impacts on local economies and on critical sectors already facing persistent labor shortages.

Ultimately, this decision puts many Haitians at risk of returning to a country with ongoing political instability, violence, and widespread economic and social challenges, making it unsafe for many to return. Though the current Supreme Court decision just affects individuals with TPS for Haiti and Syria, this decision also sets legal precedent for how the administration may approach TPS designations and terminations for other countries in the future, effectively removing judicial review over the program's administration.

This past April, bipartisan members of the House of Representatives passed a bill to extend TPS for Haiti through January 20, 2029, and now, the bill is with the Senate.

Even though the Supreme Court decision ended TPS for Haiti, a successful Senate vote could help to re-enstate TPS and extend it.

Right now, as senators consider this legislation to extend TPS for Haitians, your voice can make a difference. Contact your senators today, and urge them to extend TPS for Haiti.

The most effective thing you can do as a Welcomer is be informed and share your knowledge with your community. Here are two training resources that provide important context and tools:

• Know Your Rights (KYR) advocate training: The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) offers a free, recorded training designed for advocates and community members who want to understand constitutional rights during ICE encounters and teach those rights to others.
• Rapid response toolkit: This newly updated toolkit offers a comprehensive plan of action for communities responding to ICE raids and arrests, grounded in best practices and lessons learned from past rapid responses. Use these resources to organize, stay informed, and empower your community.

One of the most practical things you can do for a newcomer neighbor is help them plan ahead before a crisis happens. Welcome.US has developed additional considerations for sponsors and newcomers, which provide resources for newcomers who arrived in the U.S. through humanitarian parole pathways and are navigating status changes.

The Appleseed Network's Deportation Preparation Manual is a free, comprehensive guide. It addresses establishing child custody arrangements to prevent children from entering foster care, managing financial assets, navigating public benefits and educational resources for children left behind, and understanding psychological impacts on children.

What happened

In testimony before the House Appropriations Committee hearing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the U.S. is considering resettling 1,100 Afghan allies into third countries, such as Botswana, Malaysia, and war-torn Congo, rather than resettling them in the U.S or forcing them to return to Afghanistan where they face likely reprisal from the Taliban. These highly vetted individuals and families—many of whom are former combat translators, Special Operations partners, and direct family members of active-duty U.S. military personnel—have been stranded in Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar for over a year due to an ongoing suspension of refugee resettlement in the United States.

Why it matters

During the 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Kabul, the Biden administration used an emergency legal process called humanitarian parole that quickly welcomed Afghan allies to safety in the U.S. However, more than 1,000 Afghans currently in Doha were unable to escape and get their applications processed during the brief 21-day window—some were trapped in hiding, stuck in rural provinces, or unable to get past Taliban checkpoints.

Five years later, these highly vetted allies and their families—like 15-year-old Zahra who is living in Camp As Sayliyah—are still waiting to see that commitment fulfilled. The administration is in talks with third countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Malaysia, to accept these individuals and families as refugees. Advocates reject this approach, arguing that the United States promised to provide safety to the families who risked their lives standing alongside the U.S., and these third countries face their own crisis and turmoil that place families in greater danger.

What happened

On May 21, 2026, USCIS released a new policy memorandum that changes how some individuals can apply for a green card while in the United States. Under the new guidance, individuals applying for a green card within the United States through a process called “adjustment of status” (Form I-485) will no longer be able to apply from within the country unless the applicant meets “extraordinary circumstances.” While subsequent agency clarifications confirmed this is not an outright ban and applications will be reviewed case-by-case, the underlying policy heavily encourages officers to push family, employment, and diversity visa applicants toward processing abroad at a U.S. embassy or consulate. Under this framework, officers will weigh both positive and negative factors in each case. Officers are being directed to conduct more detailed background checks and apply heightened scrutiny. Simply meeting the legal requirements or maintaining a clean record is no longer a guarantee of approval as final decisions are subject to the individual officer's discretion.

Why it matters

For years, those with legal status within the U.S. have been able to apply and complete the green card application process in the U.S. This included individuals married to U.S. citizens, those with work and student visas, refugees, and political asylum-seekers, to name a few. Under this new policy, individuals who have lived, worked, and raised their families here for years could be forced to leave their families and livelihoods, return to their home country, and apply for status—and it is unclear how long they would be waiting for their application to be processed or a final decision to be made on it. For some, this means returning to a country with unsafe conditions—countries that include Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, and Syria—and no active U.S. embassy because of strained diplomatic relations.

This new policy will deeply impact families, destabilize local communities, and create critical labor shortages for the employers who rely on these individuals.

What happened

During a congressional hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin stated that ICE recently updated its officer training and rewrote the curriculum ahead of efforts to hire and train 10,000 deportation officers with funding from Congress. These new changes will go into effect on July 1. The agency stated last year that training was streamlined to accommodate an influx of new officers, and it denies allegations that the streamlined process cut corners to train officers.

President Trump also approved a $70 billion bill to fund ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) through the end of his term, which moved forward through budget reconciliation despite months of opposition from Democrats.

Why it matters

Updated officer training, combined with $70 billion in funding and resources for ICE and CBP, will allow the agencies to increase their ranks and expand removal procedures. As the administration’s efforts expand on this front, some individuals who fled persecution and sought refuge in the United States are being removed to third countries because they cannot be sent back to their home countries. For example, two women who fled violence in Iran are among those who could be deported to the Central African Republic—a country that the U.S. Department of State identified as a high travel advisory due to severe security risks. This is just one example of the administration negotiating agreements with several other countries to accept deportees.

What happened

Earlier this month, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr., a federal judge in Rhode Island, struck down three policies that affected some newcomers: a freeze on immigration benefits for individuals from 39 countries (many of them African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries), a nationwide pause on asylum adjudications, and a mandate to re-review immigration applications approved after Jan. 20, 2021. The judge ruled that the actions of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were arbitrary and contrary to the law, exceeded its authority, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The USCIS policies were originally enacted after the 2025 National Guard shooting in D.C., in which U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom was killed and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe was critically injured. It is likely the U.S. government will appeal this decision.

Why it matters

In a major victory for impacted applicants, Judge McConnell’s ruling brought an end to months of uncertainty. By determining that the policies were "arbitrary," the court highlighted the administration’s failure to provide the necessary legal justification or evidence required to implement such sweeping changes. The court’s decision offers relief to many, who will now likely see progress on their pending applications. However, the lengthy freezes created a backlog on an already overwhelmed system, which means that processing benefits and applications will take additional time and further delay critical approvals for those who rely on them.

What happened

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently announced a regulatory proposal that would limit employment authorization (EADs) for certain individuals, including humanitarian parolees. The changes proposed would reduce the current work permit duration for certain populations and require employer E-Verify participation (which currently remains optional for employers), biometrics, and a higher standard of review.

Why it matters

While our team is still analyzing the full scope of the proposal, it is clear that the new restrictions in this proposed rule would deeply impact certain newcomers, including those here on humanitarian parole and deferred action, and their ability to work and provide for their family. If passed, the shorter duration and increased restrictions could create greater instability and force workers out of the formal economy. This also impacts employers, causing businesses to abruptly lose the employees they depend on and triggering widespread labor shortages.

Your voice is a powerful tool to stop this. By law, federal agencies must review and respond to every significant or unique public comment before a rule becomes final. When enough people speak out about the harm a policy will cause, the government may reconsider its impact and feel pressured to change or scrap the plan.

The public can submit an official comment regarding these changes before they are implemented. We encourage you to submit a public comment here on or before Aug. 4, 2026.

What happened

A separate rule taking effect May 29, 2026, changes how long TPS-based work permits, known as Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), can remain valid.

Under the new policy, TPS-related work permits will generally be limited to one year or the remainder of the country’s TPS designation period, whichever is shorter.

This means many TPS holders will need to renew their work authorization more frequently than before.

Why it matters

TPS holders already navigate a system marked by periodic renewals, court decisions, and changing country designations. Shortening work authorization periods adds another layer of uncertainty for workers, employers, and families.

More frequent renewals can mean:

• higher filing costs
• additional paperwork
• greater risk of employment interruptions if processing delays occur
• more time spent navigating government processes

For employers, these shorter renewal cycles can also create administrative burdens and workforce instability. For workers, even temporary gaps in authorization can jeopardize jobs and financial security.

Most TPS holders are contributors to their communities and workplaces who are attempting to remain fully compliant with immigration rules. Critics of the new policy argue that increasing renewal frequency without improving processing reliability could create unnecessary instability for people who are already following the legal process.

What happened

Beginning May 29, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will implement new fees and enforcement rules for people with pending asylum applications under Form I-589.

Under the new policy:

• New asylum applications still require a $100 filing fee (for applications filed on or after July 22, 2025).
• Applicants with pending asylum cases will also face a recurring annual fee of $102 for every year their case remains unresolved (increased by USCIS for FY 2026 to adjust for inflation).
• If the annual fee is not paid within 30 days of notice, USCIS may reject the pending asylum application, deny or revoke related work authorization, and in some cases initiate removal proceedings for individuals who do not have another lawful immigration status.

This policy was published on April 29, 2026, and will be implemented starting on May 29. USCIS stated that applicants will receive notices explaining when payment is due and how to pay. However, immigrant advocates and legal aid organizations have already raised concerns about inconsistent notifications, lost mail, outdated address records, and confusion around the payment process. If these administrative and communication challenges are not corrected before these policies are implemented, it could leave otherwise compliant people vulnerable to irreversible penalties.

Why it matters

Most asylum-seekers are trying to follow the rules, maintain legal status, and work lawfully while their cases move through an already backlogged immigration system. But compliance becomes difficult when people do not receive clear or timely notice about new requirements.

In recent months, legal aid groups and immigration attorneys have reported cases where applicants only learned about the new fees after checking USCIS websites or speaking with lawyers, not through official notice.

USCIS has taken steps to clarify how payments work and how notices are supposed to be issued. But advocates say that there are still concerns about individuals receiving notifications and being able to meet the 30 day payment deadline. When enforcement carries consequences as serious as losing work authorization or facing removal proceedings, even small communication failures can cause individuals who are trying to comply with the law to fall out of status because of technical or bureaucratic breakdowns outside their control.

For detailed instructions on new fees and how to submit payment, check out this guide from the legal experts at ASAP.

What happened

The Supreme Court heard arguments on April 29, 2026, on whether the federal government can terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti ahead of schedule. TPS for Haiti has been in place since the 2010 earthquake, allowing Haitians to live and work legally in the United States.

The case comes as the Department of State continues to designate Haiti under a Level 4: Do Not Travel advisory due to ongoing risks including kidnapping, violent crime, civil unrest, and limited access to healthcare.

During arguments, the administration maintained that decisions about TPS fall within the executive branch’s authority—particularly because of their connection to foreign policy—and should not be broadly reviewed by courts. Challengers argued the termination violated administrative law, pointing to concerns that the government failed to properly assess current conditions in Haiti and did not follow required procedures. They also cited evidence raised in lower courts suggesting potential racial bias.

Several justices wrestled with how much oversight courts should have in these decisions. Some raised concerns about limiting executive power, while others questioned whether the administration’s position would leave any meaningful checks in place.

A decision is expected late June or early July 2026.

Why it matters

The outcome will directly impact roughly 350,000 Haitian TPS holders who have built lives, careers, and community in the United States. Many, like Maryse Balthazar—a nursing assistant who has lived in the U.S. for 16 years after losing her home in Haiti to first the 2010 earthquake and then gang-related violence—play essential roles in sectors like healthcare. If the Supreme Court sides with the administration, individuals like Maryse could face deportation to a country still grappling with severe instability, and gang violence. Families, including those with U.S. citizen children, could also face separation.

Beyond Haiti, the stakes are even higher: The ruling could shape how TPS is applied, and potentially terminated, for other countries in the future.

What happened

The federal government is expanding how it conducts background checks for immigration applications. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been directed to perform more detailed fingerprint-based background checks through the FBI for a wide range of immigration applications, including green cards, asylum, and citizenship.

CBS News reported that under the new internal guidance, officers may re-run security checks for applications already in progress, even if they were previously completed, and are instructed not to approve cases until updated results are received. This change follows a February executive order aimed at increasing data sharing across federal agencies to improve security outcomes.

Why it matters

While the expanded security checks are intended to strengthen security, they could cause significant delays and uncertainty for applicants, especially for those already present in the U.S. For many, this may lead to gaps in legal status or disruptions in daily life—including challenges to accessing healthcare, renewing driver’s licenses, or qualifying for other benefits available to legal residents of the United States.

What happened

Congress recently resolved a months-long standoff over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has been tied up in broader disagreements over immigration enforcement for immigration agencies. In late April, lawmakers passed a compromise bill restoring funding for most DHS operations, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service. But funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was handled separately.

The broader DHS shutdown ended after lawmakers agreed to fund ICE and CBP through the reconciliation process, a legislative path that allows for advancement without the need for bipartisan consensus or the standard 60-vote Senate threshold. This follows significant prior investments through the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which allocated $75 billion to ICE and $65 billion to CBP.

Why it matters

Despite earlier uncertainty, DHS operations remain fully funded, and both ICE and CBP continue to operate at full capacity. The shift to a separate funding track may also signal how immigration enforcement funding debates could unfold—and be resolved—in the future.

What happened

In a separate development, a federal judge in Boston ruled that the administration cannot stop processing immigration applications for people from countries included in the travel ban.

The policy had placed applications on hold for designated countries, affecting roughly 200 plaintiffs seeking green cards, asylum, and work permits. Judge Julia Kobick ruled that the policy is likely unlawful and unfairly targets people based on their country of origin.

The judge issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting enforcement of the policy, but only for the 200 plaintiffs directly involved in the lawsuit. This case is one of several legal challenges currently underway, including one where a group of 14 green card holders from Haiti, Venezuela, and Cote d’Ivoire sued the federal government over their ability to become U.S. citizens, despite meeting all the requirements.

Why it matters

While limited in scope, the ruling provides immediate relief for the individuals involved and signals that courts may be willing to challenge similar policies. It could also influence the outcome of related cases moving forward.

What happened

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a landmark case challenging an executive order that would end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or in temporary legal status, such as humanitarian parole or H-1B visas. Lower courts have consistently blocked the policy, finding that it likely violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

At the heart of the case is how to interpret the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause. The administration argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States should be read narrowly—applying only to children of citizens or permanent residents. Challengers pointed to long-standing precedent, especially the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, which affirmed that birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship regardless of parents’ status.

Several justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s argument and pressed on how far its interpretation could stretch. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the leap from historically narrow exceptions—like children of diplomats or occupying enemies—to excluding a much broader population of people living in the U.S. without permanent status, suggesting those examples may be too limited and “idiosyncratic” to support such a sweeping change. Justice Neil Gorsuch pushed on the internal consistency of the administration’s test, asking how it would apply to groups like Native Americans and whether it would unsettle established understandings of citizenship. Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on precedent and congressional intent, noting that Congress has repeatedly used the same constitutional language after the Court’s 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision—raising doubts about whether lawmakers ever intended to narrow birthright citizenship in the way the administration now proposes.

At the same time, some justices also challenged the challengers’ position. Justice Samuel Alito suggested that modern illegal immigration presents circumstances that did not exist when the 14th Amendment was adopted, raising questions about how much weight historical practice should carry. Others probed whether the challengers’ reading leaves any meaningful limits on who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and how to interpret that phrase in today’s immigration system.

Why it matters

Birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of U.S. law since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The amendment was originally ratified to guarantee that the formerly enslaved would be recognized as full citizens. It states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

It is foundational to how the United States defines who gets to be American.

A ruling in favor of the administration could fundamentally change who is recognized as American, potentially leaving some U.S.-born children without citizenship and at risk of deportation from the only country they’ve known. A decision is expected by the last week of June.

What happened: In January, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched Operation PARRIS (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening), an initiative aimed at reexamining the cases of thousands of refugees who were resettled in the U.S. in the last five years and have not yet received their green cards. These refugees had already undergone extensive vetting and background checks prior to being admitted into the U.S. Beginning in Minnesota, federal immigration agents began detaining lawfully resettled refugees—some of whom were transferred to detention centers in Texas before being released.

In response, a coalition of refugees and advocacy organizations filed a class action lawsuit challenging the arrest and detentions.

On Jan. 28, a federal judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking the arrest and detention of lawfully resettled refugees in Minnesota under Operation PARRIS while the lawsuit proceeds. The court also ordered the prompt release of all refugees detained in Minnesota. This ruling applies only to Minnesota and is not a final decision on the case.

Why it matters: Operation PARRIS stems from a directive issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) calling for the re-review of more than 200,000 refugees who arrived during the Biden administration. While enforcement began in Minnesota, DHS has signaled plans to expand the operation elsewhere. The court’s intervention affirms a critical principle: refugees who entered the U.S. through safe, legal pathways and were formally resettled should not be subject to arbitrary detention. While the TRO provides urgent relief for families who were living in fear, refugees and the communities that support them continue to face uncertainty, trauma, and an unpredictable enforcement landscape.

What happened

In a rare bipartisan move, House lawmakers reached the threshold needed to force a vote on extending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians through January 2029. The vote passed the House and moved to the Senate. It still needs to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president before taking effect.

This comes amid a parallel legal battle: The administration is also seeking to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation early. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 29, and is expected to provide its decision by late June or eary July.

Why it matters

TPS allows people from countries facing crisis to live and work legally in the U.S., but it does not provide a pathway to permanent residency. Roughly 350,000 Haitians currently rely on this protection. Without an extension, they could lose legal status and face deportation to a country still grappling with political instability, violence, and the long-term impacts of natural disasters.

The bipartisan support behind this effort is significant—and reflects growing recognition across party lines of the stakes for Haitian families.

What happened

A federal court in Massachusetts ruled this week that the government unlawfully terminated humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of people who had entered the U.S. legally using the CBP One app. The terminations, carried out via a mass email without individual review, are now reversed, and the government has been ordered to restore parole status.

The ruling applies to a specific group: individuals who scheduled entry through CBP One, were paroled into the U.S. between May 2023 and January 2025, and had their status revoked in April 2025. It does not apply to people who entered through other parole programs like Uniting for Ukraine or the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.

Why it matters

For those affected, the decision restores protection from deportation and eligibility to work after months of fear and instability. It also reinforces an important legal principle: The government cannot make sweeping immigration decisions affecting hundreds of thousands of people without individualized review or due process.

Questions remain about how people will be notified and how quickly their status will be restored, making access to legal guidance especially important in the coming weeks.

What happened

After imposing a sweeping pause on asylum decisions in late 2025—affecting nearly 4 million pending cases—the administration has begun processing applications again for most countries.

However, the freeze remains in place for applicants from about 40 countries designated as “high risk,” including Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and many countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Why it matters

For many asylum-seekers, this partial restart brings long-awaited progress after months of uncertainty. During the pause, applicants were left in limbo—often unable to work legally, plan for the future, or move forward with their lives.

At the same time, the continued freeze for certain nationalities raises serious equity concerns. Some of the people facing the greatest danger in their home countries remain stuck without answers, underscoring how uneven access to protection has become.

What happened: As part of the administration’s efforts to impose stricter entry requirements, the U.S. Department of State has directed consular officers to indefinitely suspend the issuance of immigrant visas for people from 75 countries deemed “at high risk of public benefits usage.”

This suspension means that individuals from these countries who were seeking to immigrate to the U.S.—often after navigating a lengthy and complex legal process—will not receive visas while the policy remains in effect.

The affected countries include:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.

People who already possess immigrant visas, including those currently outside the U.S., are not affected.

Why it matters: This visa suspension closes safe and legal pathways for families who have already navigated a lengthy and complex immigration process. This includes Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants who risked their lives to serve alongside U.S. forces.

By halting visas, even after approval, the policy leaves families in limbo, separates loved ones indefinitely, and undermines confidence in the fairness and reliability of America’s legal immigration system.

(Feb. 2026)

What happened

On Feb. 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo stating it intends to arrest refugees who have been in the United States for more than one year and have not yet applied for lawful permanent residence (a green card).

The memo was submitted in federal court as part of ongoing litigation over Operation PARRIS, an enforcement effort in Minneapolis where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained refugees in their communities and transferred them out of state while re-examining their cases. A federal court has paused those arrests while the lawsuit continues.

The new memo suggests DHS may seek to expand that approach nationwide.

What the memo states

Under current law:

• Refugees are admitted to the U.S. after extensive vetting.
• One year after arrival, they are expected to apply for a green card.
• After five years as a green card holder, they may apply for citizenship.

In the memo, DHS asserts that if a refugee has not applied for a green card and completed an interview after one year, the government may:

• Locate and arrest that person,
• Detain them for an unspecified period of time,
• Revisit not only their green card eligibility but also their original refugee claim, and
• Ultimately either grant permanent residence or place them into removal proceedings.

Importantly, the memo does not set a time limit on detention.

It is still unclear how broadly or quickly DHS may attempt to implement this policy, and how courts may ultimately rule on its legality.

Why it matters

Refugees are among the most heavily vetted groups entering the United States. Before arrival, they undergo years of background checks, interviews, biometric screening, and medical exams.

They are admitted lawfully and begin rebuilding their lives with legal protections in place.

Applying for a green card after one year is part of that pathway, but in practice, refugees often face real barriers:

• Limited access to affordable legal assistance
• Language barriers
• Financial hardship
• Medical or mental health challenges
• Confusion about paperwork requirements

If arrest and detention become enforcement tools for those who have not yet applied, the impact could be significant. An estimated 100,000 refugees nationwide may not have adjusted status yet.

Beyond legal questions, there are real human consequences. Refugees, by definition, fled persecution. Being detained, separated from family, or asked to re-prove their past trauma can be destabilizing and retraumatizing.

At this time, much remains uncertain—but preparation and information matter.

If you are a refugee or supporting someone who may be affected

Here are three practical steps you can take now:

1. Connect with legal support. If eligible, refugees should apply for lawful permanent residence. You can search for a qualified immigration attorney using the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) directory.

2. Make an emergency preparedness plan. Use this guide developed by Community Sponsorship Hub, Welcoming Initiative for Newcomers, and Alight to help families prepare important documents and contact plans in case of detention.

3. Offer steady support and connection. Review our guide on helping newcomers cope in unsettling times to provide emotional reassurance and practical care.

What happened: On Feb. 2, a federal judge issued a stay, or postponement, delaying the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians. The ruling prevents the program from expiring as scheduled and keeps current protections in place while a legal challenge moves forward. More than 300,000 Haitian newcomers have sought safety in the U.S. since 2010 after fleeing widespread violence, political instability, natural disasters, and economic collapse. Many now face serious safety risks if forced to return to Haiti.

While the pause is in place, Haitian TPS holders retain work authorization and access to the benefits provided under the program. The court will next consider whether the U.S. government is legally permitted to terminate TPS for Haiti, taking into account ongoing conditions in the country.

Why it matters: TPS for Haiti was first designated more than a decade ago in response to devastating earthquakes and persistent political instability, and it has been repeatedly renewed as conditions remain unsafe. Over the years, Haitian newcomers have built lives in the U.S., raising families, working, and contributing to their communities.

Although the court’s stay offers short-term relief, it underscores how fragile these protections remain. For communities like those in the Texas Panhandle that have welcomed Haitian neighbors, this uncertainty means prolonged instability and the potential loss of friends, coworkers, and community members who have become like family.

What happened: On Jan. 31, a federal judge in Minnesota denied a request from state and local officials to temporarily halt Operation Metro Surge, a large-scale federal immigration enforcement effort in the Twin Cities, while litigation challenging the operation continues.

State and local leaders argued that the expanded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) presence exceeded federal authority, caused fear and disruption in local communities, and lacked a legitimate law enforcement purpose. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet the legal threshold required to pause the operation at this stage.

As a result, the increased ICE presence in the Twin Cities may continue while the broader lawsuit moves forward.

Why it matters: Operation Metro Surge has already had significant impacts on families and neighborhoods. Detentions may continue for individuals who have sought safety in the U.S., including people with pending asylum cases—such as 5-year-old Liam and his father, who were detained despite having active applications.

Even as this enforcement continues, there is growing support from elected officials and community leaders across the country for greater accountability, transparency, and compassion in immigration enforcement, with the latest statement coming from dozens of national security and immigration policy experts who served during Republican administrations. This case highlights the tension between expanded federal authority and the well-being of local communities.