The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans living in the US. The ruling follows a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of individual beneficiaries, sponsors of humanitarian parole processes, and affected parolees.
The lawsuit comes after the Trump administration in March revoked the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of people residing in the US. The “Keeping Families Together” program, introduced by former president Joe Biden, allowed “certain alien ‘applicants for admission’ to be present in the United States on a temporary, case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” If granted parole, these individuals could apply for adjustment of status “to that of a lawful permanent resident” without having to leave the US.
The initial complaint mentions various groups of individuals—including “Ukrainians seeking safety from the Russian invasion of their country; Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans all fleeing political instability, persecution, and environmental disasters; and Afghans who assisted the United States government during its war in Afghanistan”—hoping to find safety and stability in the US.
The lower Massachusetts court granted emergency relief, staying the termination of these parole processes. On appeal, the First Circuit found that § 1182(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not grant the Secretary of Homeland Security unfettered discretion to “terminate parole on other than a case-by-case basis.” That section states that the Secretary of Homeland Security may “in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States.” The First Circuit held that while the statutory text was less clear about termination of parole, the statute mentions “such parole of such alien” and refers “to the singular ‘he,’ all consistently suggesting a case-by case determination rather than a categorical determination.”
The court held that the secretary has not yet made a “strong showing” that her categorical termination of the plaintiffs’ parole is likely to be upheld. Amidst Trump’s continuing crackdown on immigration and deportation, the Trump administration may ask the US Supreme Court to intervene.
