Original Date Announced

ICE and USCIS leadership issued a joint memorandum titled "Detention of Refugees Who Have Failed to Adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident Status." The memorandum establishes a new detain-and-inspect policy for unadjusted refugees, requiring that one year after their admission to the U.S., a refugee must return to be returned to DHS custody for inspection and examination for admission as a lawful permanent resident. If the individual does not voluntarily return, DHS will return the individual to custody (including by arrest or detention). The memorandum states that DHS may maintain custody for the duration of the inspection and examination process. The memorandum additionally states without citation that "Refugee admission is expressly conditional and time-limited."

The memorandum notes that a 2010 memorandum on this topic from James Chaparro, which stated that failure by a refugee to obtain LPR status was not itself a basis for detention or removal, was rescinded by separate memo on December 18, 2025. but states that the February 18, 2026, memo rescinds the 2010 memorandum "anew."

The new memorandum was disclosed through litigation documents in U.H.A. v. Bondi, No. 0:26-cv-00417 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Trump 2.0 [ID #2206]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.02.27 Memorandum Opinion - U.H.A. v. Bondi

District Judge John R. Tunheim granted in part plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction for a putative class of refugees in Minnesota who have not adjusted to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and are not charged with a ground of removal. The order enjoins the federal government from arresting or detaining refugees members of the putative class on the basis that they are unadjusted refugees. The court denied without prejudice preliminary relief to members of the putative "Detained Subclass" who have already been released pursuant to a TRO. The court also postponed the effective date in Minnesota only of the refugee detention policy, defined as the government's policy of subjecting all refugees who have not yet obtained LPR status to arrest and mandatory detention after being present in the U.S. for one year. The court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the policy violates procedural due process, substantive due process, the Fourth Amendment, and the APA. U.H.A. v. Bondi, No. 0:26-cv-00417 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.02.27 Complaint - Jean A. v. Noem

Several refugees and refugee resettlement organizations filed a class action lawsuit challenging the February 18 USCIS-ICE joint memo described above and the rescission of the 2010 memo on refugee detention. The complaint states that these actions "comprise a policy of warrantless arrest, unauthorized detention, and coercive interrogation of refugees (the Refugee Detention Policy) that is unlawful," and asserts class allegations on behalf of "[a]ll individuals with refugee status who have not yet adjusted to lawful permanent resident status who have been or will be detained pursuant to the Refugee Detention Policy." The complaint alleges that the government's actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fourth Amendment, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs request preliminary and permanent injunctions as well as declaratory relief. Jean A. v. Noem, No. 3:26-cv-30031 (D. Mass.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.03.23 Order Granting Stay - Jean A. v. Noem

District Judge Richard Stearns granted plaintiffs' motion to stay enforcement of the February 18 USCIS-ICE joint memo throughout the pendency of litigation pursuant to § 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The order states that plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that the government's new policy conflates "custody" with "detention" and is unlawful. Jean A. v. Noem, No. 3:26-cv-30031 (D. Mass.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**