The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Family Reunification Parole programs for nationals of Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras, finding the action arbitrary and capricious for failing to adequately weigh reliance interests and relying on unsupported vetting concerns, while also violating regulatory and due process notice requirements.
Key Facts
Plaintiffs consist of a class of noncitizens who were paroled into the United States under Family Reunification Parole programs. The programs allow beneficiaries of approved Form I-130 petitions filed by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents to receive temporary parole while awaiting immigrant visa availability. These programs include modernized versions established in 2023 for seven nationalities and legacy programs for Cubans (2007) and Haitians (2014). Parole grants are typically for two or three years, with work authorization eligibility. Approximately 16,100 individuals were paroled under these programs.
DHS announced the termination of the programs and all unexpired initial parole grants on December 15, 2025, effective January 14, 2026, via Federal Register Notice. Exceptions included pending Form I-485 applications or case-by-case Secretary determinations. Plaintiffs filed for emergency relief, leading to a temporary restraining order on January 10, 2026, staying the termination for 14 days.
Legal Issues Presented
- Did the termination exceed the Secretary’s statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)?
- Was the termination arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act?
- Did the termination require notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. § 553?
- Did the notice provided violate DHS regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 212.5(e)(2)(i) and 274a.14(b)(2), and constitutional due process
Decision Summary
Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and stay granted.
Legal Reasoning and Analysis
The court first confirmed jurisdiction, distinguishing procedural challenges from unreviewable discretionary decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), citing Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010). It applied the preliminary injunction factors from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).
On exceeding authority, the court found no likelihood of success, as the Secretary may change policy aims per Doe v. Noem, 152 F.4th 272 (1st Cir. 2025). For arbitrary and capricious review under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the court held the termination violated standards from Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), by understating FRP-specific reliance interests (e.g., long waits for I-130 approvals and invitations, permanent relocations) and overstating unsupported vetting and fraud concerns, lacking evidence in the administrative record. Notice-and-comment under 5 U.S.C. § 553 was not required, as the Notice was a policy statement preserving discretion, per Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993).
The court scrutinized the administrative record, finding no support for fraud claims (e.g., no audit included, no link to actual parolees). Furthermore, it credited plaintiff declarations on reliance harms.
Practical Implications
FRP parolees may remain in the U.S. until the original parole expiration. It is preserving work authorization and avoiding unlawful presence accrual. Petitioners (U.S. citizens/lawful permanent residents) avoid family separation. Employers retain workforce stability.
Parolees should monitor USCIS communications for re-parole options via Form I-131 and prepare evidence of urgent humanitarian or public benefit needs. Maintain records of I-130 approvals and invitations. Avoid departing the U.S. to prevent automatic termination. Consult official USCIS guidance for adjustment of status if visas become available.
Key Takeaways
- Court enjoins DHS’s mass termination of FRP parole grants for inadequate reliance interest weighing and unsupported vetting claims.
- Notice by Federal Register publication is insufficient under regulations and due process; individualized written notice is required.
- FRP parolees retain status until the original expiration date. They are avoiding immediate removal or unlawful presence.
- No notice-and-comment required for policy statements preserving discretion.
