Judge’s Ruling on Parole Status
A federal judge has determined that the Trump administration cannot terminate the “parole” status for certain migrants seeking family reunification. The ruling, issued on Saturday, highlighted that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not adequately inform these individuals about their potential loss of status.
The Family Reunification Parole program allowed individuals from specific countries to stay in the United States despite lacking formal legal authorization. This program was set to end on January 14, putting participants at risk of deportation.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, appointed by former President Obama and serving in Massachusetts, stated that both legal requirements and DHS policies mandate written notification for anyone losing their parole status. According to her findings, such notifications were not provided.
In her preliminary assessment for a temporary restraining order, Judge Talwani noted that plaintiffs have a strong chance of succeeding in their claim that proper notice was not given regarding DHS’s decision to revoke parole under the Family Reunification Parole program.
Parole allows individuals to remain in the U.S. without a legal visa. The Biden administration had extended parole to millions through various initiatives, while the Trump administration sought to eliminate these options.
The Family Reunification Program specifically grants parole to spouses, siblings, or parents who may have had a pathway to enter the U.S. based on their relationship with an American citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem argued that the program did not achieve its intended goals and ordered its termination.
The Department of Justice asserted in court documents that written notice regarding the program’s termination was provided through a publication in the Federal Register. They also claimed updates were made to parolees’ immigration files at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
However, Judge Talwani emphasized that legal standards require direct written notice to each individual affected. She indicated that merely publishing information in a government document does not satisfy this requirement and questioned whether changes reflected in USCIS online accounts would suffice as proper notification.
