Original Date Announced

Acting ICE Director issued policy directive 11005.4 titled, "Interim Guidance on Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions Involving Current or Potential Beneficiaries of Victim-Based Immigration Benefits."

The memo states ICE officers and agents are "not required to affirmatively seek to identify indicia or evidence suggesting an alien is a victim of a crime or consider such evidence as a positive discretionary factor" when deciding to take enforcement action. Rescinded guidance cited as examples orders of protection or eligibility letters from the HHS Office of Trafficking in Persons.

ICE officials should consult with the ICE Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) when they encounter individuals who have already received status through a victim-based immigration benefit.

Rescinding guidance directing ICE personnel to request that USCIS expedite adjudication of pending applications or petitions for victim-based immigration requests—including for people in ICE custody subject to mandatory detention—the interim guidance says expedited requests only will be made when it is "in ICE's best interest."

This directive aligns with EO 14159, "Protecting the American People Against Invasion," and supersedes previous ICE directives 11005.3 and 10076.1, which directed ICE officials to adopt a "victim-centered approach" when engaged in civil immigration enforcement.

Trump 2.0 [ID #1491]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.10.14 Complaint - ICWC v. Noem

Several legal services nonprofits and individuals filed a class action suit challenging Directive 11005.4, as well as two policies implemented pursuant to the directive: the "De Facto Revocation Policy" and the "Blind Removal Policy." The plaintiffs allege that under the De Facto Revocation Policy, ICE has regularly detained and deported noncitizen survivors of human trafficking and crime who had been granted deferred action, treating its enforcement actions as de facto revocations of deferred action without prior notice or opportunity to be heard. Under the Blind Removal Policy, ICE has deported migrants with pending applications for U visas, T visas, and lawful status under the Violence Against Women Act without conducting statutorily-mandated inquiries into migrants' prima facie eligibility for those forms of relief.

The complaint alleges that Directive 11005.4 and the two policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act; the De Facto Revocation Policy violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; and the Blind Removal Policy violates the INA. Plaintiffs seek class certification and declarative and injunctive relief. Immigration Center for Women and Children v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-09848 (C.D. Cal.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**