Svitlana Doe v. Noem (Humanitarian Parole) - District Court

This lawsuit is on behalf of eleven parole beneficiaries, seven parole sponsors, and organizational plaintiff Haitian Bridge Alliance, challenging the Trump administration’s actions to end so-called “categorical” humanitarian parole processes, including parole processes for Cuban, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV); Ukrainians (U4U); Afghans (OAW); Military Parole in Place (MPIP); Family Reunification Parole (FRP); and Central American Minors (CAM).

Plaintiffs—represented by co-counsel including Justice Action Center and Human Rights First—specifically challenge the administration’s summary termination of humanitarian parole processes via the government’s refusal in processing or adjudicating any pending parole or re-parole applications. Plaintiffs also challenge the administration’s indefinite suspension of processing or adjudicating immigration benefit requests filed by or on behalf of the beneficiaries of such parole processes. Plaintiffs argue that these actions are unlawful because they are  based on an incorrect interpretation of the parole statute.  Plaintiffs also argue that the manner in which the administration has terminated these parole processes and suspended all immigration benefit requests by humanitarian parolees failed to meet the threshold requirement for “reasoned decision making.”

On March 17, 2025, Plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunctive relief, asking the court to block the administration’s summary termination of these parole processes and suspension of processing for immigration benefit requests filed by parolees. The Plaintiffs also sought to certify a class of individuals harmed by the administration’s actions, including subclasses of both parole beneficiaries and the sponsors of parole beneficiaries.

On March 21st, the Trump Administration issued an “unpublished” Federal Register Notice (FRN) revoking the lawful status of hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries of the “CHNV” humanitarian parole process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. The “final” version of the FRN was published on March 25. The Plaintiffs filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction to seek relief from the FRN on March 27, 2025.  

Following three hearings and additional briefing, on April 14, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions and stayed (i.e., prevented from going into effect) DHS’s attempt to cut short all existing authorized periods of CHNV parole on behalf of a class that she certified at the same time. The federal government has appealed this decision and also asked the First Circuit Court of Appeals to stay (pause) Judge Talwani’s order while the parties litigate the appeal. On May 5, the First Circuit denied the request to stay Judge Talwani’s order.

On May 28, the Court granted additional relief and class certification, resuming adjudication of the following for individuals nationwide who are currently in the country: (1) pending immigration benefits requests filed by people granted parole under the CHNV, U4U, OAW, FRP, CAM, and MPIP; (2) pending re-parole applications filed by people granted parole under programs with re-parole; and (3) initial MPIP applications.

On May 29, in a brief decision containing no legal analysis or reasoning, the Supreme Court granted the government’s emergency stay request and stayed (blocked the effect of) Judge Talwani’s April 14, 2025 order, pending litigation on the merits. This means that the Federal Register Notice terminating all existing grants of CHNV parole took effect immediately. As a result, about half a million CHNV parole beneficiaries have instantly lost legal status in the largest single mass de-legalization event in U.S. history. The parties have since briefed the merits before the First Circuit, which heard oral arguments on July 29, 2005.

On May 30, the federal government filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On June 13, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss, and June 16, Plaintiffs followed up with a motion for partial summary judgment, requesting the court rule on the merits that the government’s termination of CHNV parole and revocation of existing parole grants were unlawful. Briefing on the government’s motion to dismiss has concluded.

On July 28 - the last day possible for it to do so - the federal government appealed Judge Talwani’s May 28 orders certifying a class and staying (blocking) the agency policies that had paused processing of immigration benefits applications filed by or on behalf of the beneficiaries of humanitarian parole processes. But on November 4, the government voluntarily dismissed its appeal of the May 28 orders. On November 10, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for partial summary judgment on their claims relating to termination of grants of CHNV parole. 

On November 10, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for partial summary judgment on their claims relating to termination of grants of CHNV parole. Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on November 25, and Plaintiffs replied on December 8.

On December 2, 2025, USCIS issued a memorandum placing an adjudication hold on all asylum applications nationwide, as well as on all pending immigration benefit requests filed by individuals from 19 different countries designated as “high-risk” in a recent Presidential Proclamation blocking the entry into the U.S. of such individuals. Then, on December 15, 2025, the government published a Federal Register Notice announcing its plan to prematurely end individual grants of Family Reunification Parole (FRP) for individuals from Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras on January 14, 2026. According to the notice, individuals would lose their parole status and work authorization by January 14, 2026, if they had not submitted a Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) by December 15, 2025, the date of the notice.

In response, on December 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to add parties, allegations, and claims addressing (1) the termination of FRP parole processes and (2) the December 2 Memo suspending immigration benefit adjudications for nationals from certain designated countries. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and to stay Defendants’ termination of grants of FRP parole, and a motion to modify the class definition in the case to include FRP parole beneficiaries. Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to file their third amended complaint on December 31, and their oppositions to Plaintiffs’ motions for a TRO/PI/stay and to modify class definitions on January 6, 2026.

On January 9, 2026, Judge Talwani granted Plaintiffs leave to file a supplemental complaint adding information about the FRP parole processes and the December 2 Memo. That same day, Judge Talwani held an oral argument in Boston on the pending motions. The following day, on January 10, 2026, Judge Talwani granted Plaintiffs’ motion for TRO, providing a temporary 14-day pause on the government’s termination of FRP grants of parole and related work authorizations while briefing concludes on Plaintiffs’ PI motion. The TRO will be in place through January 24, 2026. Judge Talwani also certified a new subclass of FRP beneficiaries whose parole is terminated by the December 15th FRN.