Case: J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
8:19-cv-01944 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Filed Date: July 1, 2019
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 2019 policy memorandum that instructed asylum officers to reassess whether applicants previously determined to be unaccompanied alien children (UACs) still met that definition at the time of application and, if not, to decline jurisdiction.
On July 1, 2019, four unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the United States filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The plaintiffs alleged that the policy retroactively stripped them of protections under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and created a filing deadline that did not exist at the time they submitted their claims, in violation of the APA and the Fifth Amendment. Represented by Goodwin Procter LLP, Kids in Need of Defense, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, and Public Counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory relief finding the policy unlawful, injunctive relief preventing implementation of the policy, injunctive relief preventing adjudicatory or enforcement action against the proposed class during the pendency of the litigation, and attorney’s fees. The case was assigned to District Judge George J. Hazel.
On the day of the filing, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO). On August 2, 2019, the court granted the TRO, which was later converted to a preliminary injunction. 409 F.Supp.3d 367.
On December 20, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a defendant. The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. 2020 WL 2932922.
On December 21, 2020, the court certified a class of individuals who had been designated UACs and filed asylum applications before the effective date of any lawful new policy, but whose applications remained pending. 338 F.R.D. 33. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the preliminary injunction. The amended order enjoined USCIS from applying the 2019 policy to decline jurisdiction over class members’ asylum applications, barred the agency from deferring to EOIR determinations, and restricted ICE from seeking control of class members’ asylum claims during removal proceedings.
Settlement
The government appealed the class certification order to the Fourth Circuit (No. 21-1187), but voluntarily dismissed that appeal in November 2024 following settlement. 2024 WL 5515354.
In January 2022, the parties requested referral to mediation, which ultimately resulted in a joint motion for class-wide settlement approval filed in July 2024. On November 25, 2024, the court approved the settlement, dissolved the preliminary injunction, and entered final judgment. Under the agreement, USCIS rescinded the 2019 Redetermination Memo, reaffirmed initial jurisdiction over covered UAC asylum applications, and agreed not to execute removal orders until those applications were adjudicated. On December 23, 2024, the plaintiffs moved for attorneys’ fees. These were eventually granted in July 2025. 2025 WL 1940353. The court found over $900,000 in fees justified because the government’s implementation of the 2019 policy failed to provide the required notice and comment period and was inappropriately applied retroactively.)
Removal of Cristian Under the Alien Enemies Act
In April 2025, following the start of a new administration, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the settlement before Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher. They alleged that ICE had removed a class member on March 15, 2025, under a presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The class member, Cristian (a pseudonym), was a 20-year-old Venezuelan with a pending USCIS asylum application. His counsel had told ICE of his class membership two days before the removal. On April 23, 2025, the court granted the motion. 779 F.Supp.3d 570. The court found that Cristian was a class member and that removing him before asylum adjudication violated Section III.I of the agreement. The court ordered ICE to “facilitate” his return, including a good faith request to El Salvador to release him, and enjoined the removal of any class members with pending asylum applications.
The government moved to vacate the order, arguing that Cristian’s claim was barred by his alleged membership in the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and a prior felony conviction. USCIS had issued an “Indicative Asylum Decision” concluding that his application would be denied. The court denied the motion but stayed the return order for two days to allow for appeal.
On May 8, 2025, the Fourth Circuit (No. 25-1519) granted an administrative stay. On May 19, 2025, it denied a full stay pending appeal in a split decision. Judge Benjamin, joined by Judge Gregory, wrote a concurrence to explain the decision to deny the stay, explaining that the summary removal deprived Cristian of the adjudication of his asylum application on the merits to which he was entitled under the Settlement Agreement. 2025 WL 1431263. Judge Gregory also wrote that the AEA proclamation was “plainly invalid.” Judge Richardson dissented, arguing that AEA removals fell outside the settlement and that “court-commanded negotiation with a foreign state” exceeded judicial authority. The government later sought to suspend briefing in the appeal pending an indicative ruling from the district court, which it intended to seek because, it asserted, it had complied with the injunction warranting dissolution. The Fourth Circuit granted the motion to suspend briefing and hold the appeal in abeyance on October 9, 2025. On February 26, 2026, the government moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, and the Fourth Circuit granted the motion the next day.
Meanwhile, the district court, citing vague sworn status reports from the government, ordered expedited discovery on June 5, 2025, including interrogatories, document production, two depositions, and weekly sworn updates. In July 2025, the court noted that a United Nations human rights report, cited in J.G.G. v. Trump, quoted the Salvadoran government as disclaiming custody of the deported Venezuelans, and it asked the government to explain why diplomacy was needed to comply. On July 18, 2025, Cristian was transferred from El Salvador to Venezuela in a prisoner exchange in which the United States served as an intermediary. Class counsel lost contact with him in late August 2025, and his whereabouts are unknown.
On August 14, 2025, the plaintiffs asked the court to find probable cause for criminal contempt, alleging that the government had not made the requested return effort, had failed to update the court adequately, and had arranged his release to Venezuela instead. The government responded on September 11, 2025, that it could not simply ask El Salvador to return Cristian because he was under El Salvador’s sovereign authority and diplomacy belongs to the Secretary of State. It argued that it had complied by facilitating talks between El Salvador and the Maduro regime and securing an agreement that he could return. It also said state secrets privileges limited what it could disclose in status reports. The plaintiffs replied that the order required a specific request to El Salvador, that none was made, and that the late status reports were a strategic choice to conceal the prisoner exchange. The government conceded it held back a report in part to avoid public scrutiny of the deal.
On November 14, 2025, Judge Gallagher denied the plaintiffs’ motions for prompt notice of Cristian’s return and for probable cause for criminal contempt, and the government’s motion to vacate. 2025 WL 2340078. The court agreed it had seen no evidence that anyone made a good faith request to El Salvador. It still declined to find probable cause for criminal contempt because the named defendants could only pass the order to the State Department, which handles foreign communications but was not a party. The order therefore could not clearly direct the conduct that criminal contempt requires. The court found the July 18 delay in filing a status report willful but declined to start criminal proceedings over what it called modest filing delays. It denied the notice motion as moot. It denied the motion to vacate because the government showed no ongoing burden and Cristian had been sent to Venezuela against his will. The court lifted the stayed status-report requirement, and the government’s obligation to facilitate his return continues if he resurfaces and wants to return.
On March 30, 2026, the plaintiffs moved for a second award of attorneys’ fees for the Cristian litigation. On September 8, 2026, the court granted the motion in part under the Equal Access to Justice Act, finding the government’s position was not substantially justified. It awarded $160,823.09 in fees and $3,704.61 in costs.
Removals of Other Class Members
On October 2, 2025, the plaintiffs notified the court that the government had removed six “potential” J.O.P. class members in violation of the settlement agreement. Three were removed three months earlier, and the government has not said when the others were removed. The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the agreement class-wide. The court denied it without prejudice on November 20, 2025, on procedural grounds and directed the parties to meet and confer on the government’s compliance process. 2025 WL 3240078. The court noted its concern about the number of apparent violations.
After a December 22, 2025 meet and confer, the plaintiffs filed a third emergency motion on January 22, 2026 to enforce the settlement and find the defendants in civil contempt. They asked the court to order defendants to determine class membership before removals, give detained class members notice of their rights, review for other wrongful removals, and file compliance reports. After a February 18, 2026 hearing at which the court found the government’s showing inadequate, the court held a three-day evidentiary hearing in March 2026. Testimony revealed that the government had removed at least 91 confirmed and potential class members, far more than originally reported. On March 16, 2026, the court granted in part a motion to compel production of ICE and USCIS records.
On July 29, 2026, the court ruled on the third motion and on a separate motion to compel the return of a class member, E.M.P. The court denied the motion to compel. E.M.P. had signed a voluntary departure form in ICE detention and was flown to Guatemala on February 4, 2026. His counsel said he has an intellectual disability and thought he was signing a habeas petition. The court held that Section III.I and the April 2025 order do not cover removal carried out to effectuate voluntary departure. It shared the plaintiffs’ concern about whether his election was voluntary but held that reviewing a grant of discretionary relief was beyond its enforcement authority.
The court granted the motion to enforce in part. As of June 26, 2026, the government reported 107 confirmed (54) and potential (53) class members removed under final removal orders, along with 66 voluntary departures. The court found the defendants in civil contempt of its November 2024 and April 2025 orders, limited to removals carried out in ignorance or disregard of ICE’s own markers of potential class membership. It rejected the defendants’ good faith and substantial compliance defenses. It declined to find that flaws in how USCIS identifies class members violated the agreement, because the agreement contains no list or identification method. It imposed no sanctions and allowed the defendants to purge the contempt by showing they have stopped removing people despite those markers.
The court ordered ICE not to remove anyone identified as a potential class member until USCIS adjudicates the application or confirms the person is not a class member. It also ordered ICE to enter a system alert within two business days of identification, check its records for class markers before every removal, and send written guidance to all ICE personnel within 15 days and monthly after that. Under Rule 60(b), the court found the scale of noncompliance was an unanticipated changed circumstance and modified the agreement to require biweekly searches for removed potential class members and biweekly status reports. It denied the remaining relief, including a broader class list, independent identification by ICE, ICE training, and individualized notice to detained class members, and it rejected the government’s argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred the relief.
Since the July 29 order, the defendants have filed biweekly status reports. In an October 22, 2026 report, they disclosed that two potential class members were removed after ICE issued guidance under the order. On October 15, 2026, the defendants moved under Rule 60(a) to clarify that the order’s requirement of written guidance “to all ICE personnel nationwide” allowed ICE to send its monthly guidance only to the employees responsible for carrying out the order’s obligations. The motion is pending as of October 2026.
USCIS Asylum Hold and Extension of the Settlement
On December 2, 2025, USCIS issued a policy memorandum directing USCIS personnel to place a hold on all applications for asylum and to withhold removal regardless of individuals’ country of nationality.
At the February 18 hearing, defense counsel could not say what had happened to class members’ requests for expedited adjudication under Section III.G. At a February 25 meet and confer, the defendants said only that the memo is outside the scope of the settlement. The court ordered a recorded, fact-specific meet and confer by March 9 on whether the hold applies to class members, how many merits decisions USCIS had issued to class members since December 2, and whether and how often USCIS has granted expedite requests. On March 5, 2026, the court granted class counsel’s motion to compel the defendants to meet and confer about the memo.
On April 2, 2026, the defendants notified the court that on March 30, 2026, USCIS had published an update describing an internal process to lift holds on individual or group cases for applicants from non-high-risk countries. USCIS would continue to defer decisions on asylum applications to immigration courts.
On April 10, 2026, the plaintiffs moved to extend the settlement’s termination date. After a May 19, 2026 hearing, the court granted the motion on May 26, 2026, and extended the termination date by 175 days, from May 27, 2026 to November 18, 2026. 2026 WL 1469149. The court found the December 2025 memo to be a dramatic change in circumstance, noting that the full cessation of adjudications violated the agreement. It did not find that growth in the size of the class was a changed circumstance. On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated the hold memo under the APA in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS. The government appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, but has represented that the hold is not being applied.
On September 21, 2026, class counsel moved under Rule 60(b) to extend the termination date again, to November 27, 2026 for the whole class (to cover the nine days the hold stayed in effect after the May 2026 order) and to February 24, 2028 for class members removed in violation of Section III.I. The court has scheduled oral argument for October 29, 2026, and noted that it may also discuss the other pending motions.
Second Removal of E.L.A.
On September 1, 2026, ICE removed a class member, E.L.A., to El Salvador for the second time. ICE had first removed him on March 14, 2026, while his asylum application was pending, and returned him to the United States on August 7 after class counsel’s advocacy. ICE held him in Louisiana detention until the second removal, while his counsel was preparing him for his asylum interview. The defendants had agreed to return him but planned to close his asylum application over biometrics appointments he missed in 2025. On September 11, class counsel moved to hold the defendants in contempt and enforce the agreement, and on September 14 the court ordered daily meet and confers and status reports on his return.
On September 25, 2026, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, in an opinion filed under seal. The court found the defendants in contempt of its November 25, 2024, April 23, 2025, and July 29, 2026 orders. It ordered them to return E.L.A. to the United States and not to execute a final removal order against him until USCIS issues a Final Determination on one properly filed asylum application or the agreement expires. The defendants must give three days’ notice of his arrival, return his property and documents, and give five business days’ notice and legal authority before any attempt to remove him. The court denied the remaining relief.
E.L.A. told the defendants he wants to return, and by October 9, 2026, ICE and his counsel were exchanging information to arrange his travel. The defendants said they will detain him on arrival, over class counsel’s request for release. As of October 23, 2026, he has not been returned.
The defendants said they cannot locate his property and have exhausted their efforts, while class counsel asked that he be compensated if it is not found. On October 9, 2026, the defendants moved under Rule 59(e), or alternatively Rule 60(b)(2), to strike the property provision, arguing that the property was outside U.S. government control, that class counsel’s accounts of his belongings were inconsistent, and that sovereign immunity barred compensation. On October 16, 2026, the court suspended the daily calls and status reports until it received class counsel’s response to that motion. The motion is pending.
Enforcement of Section III.H (Removal Proceedings)
On August 18, 2026, class counsel moved to enforce Section III.H, which limited DHS’s opposition in immigration court to class members’ requests to wait for USCIS to act on their asylum applications. The motion challenged DHS’s opposition to administrative closure, its motions to recalendar closed cases, and its opposition to termination motions without individualized reasons. After a September 23, 2026 hearing, Judge Gallagher granted the motion in part and denied it in part on October 8, 2026. 2026 WL 3071704.
The court rejected the defendants’ argument that administrative closure was unavailable following a consent judgment in Texas v. Department of Justice vacating the 2024 Administrative Closure Rule. That judgment is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by proposed intervenors who allege it was collusive.
On the merits, the court agreed with class counsel on all three practices. The agreement said DHS “will join or non-oppose” closure motions, which is mandatory, while termination motions are subject to “will generally.” DHS violated the agreement by opposing closure and by moving to recalendar closed cases, since the agreement implicitly barred DHS from undoing a closure it must not oppose. DHS also violated it by opposing termination without individualized reasons or on the position that USCIS lacks initial jurisdiction. The court declined to require DHS to state individualized reasons to the immigration judge, because that would add a term the parties did not agree to.
As of October 23, 2026, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Kara Wilczynski (7/30/2026)
Nora Baty (10/10/2019)
Bogyung Lim (1/28/2020)
Rachel Kreager (4/7/2021)
Scott Shuchart (5/2/2025)
Clearinghouse (5/20/2025)
Brian Chen (8/6/2025)
Zainab Mustafa (10/1/2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15867241/parties/jop-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Blais, Elaine Herrmann (Massachusetts)
Alderette, Jeffrey (Maryland)
Attorney, Brandon Davis
Attorney, Yamileth G. (Maryland)
Bedestani, Erhan Bedestani (Maryland)
Blais, Elaine Herrmann (Massachusetts)
Burgess, Brian (District of Columbia)
DeJong, Kevin J. (Massachusetts)
Esq., Brian Timothy (Maryland)
Frederick, Sarah (Massachusetts)
Jackson, Kristen M. (California)
Mendez, Michelle N. (Maryland)
Perez-Sparks, Sierra (Maryland)
Ross, Mary Tanagho (California)
Shaw, Stephen (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15867241/jop-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Last updated Nov. 3, 2026, 12:43 p.m.
Docket for: J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Reversing Course on Existing Litigation
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 1, 2019
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Individuals who (1) were determined to be an Unaccompanied Alien Child; and (2) who filed an asylum application that was pending with the USCIS; and (3) on the date they filed their asylum application with USCIS, were 18 years of age or older, or had a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody; and (4) for whom USCIS has not adjudicated the individual’s asylum application on the merit
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Federal
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of Maryland 8:19-cv-01944
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 21-01187
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 25-01519
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 25-02098
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 26-02013
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
National / Universal injunction
Issues
General/Misc.:
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/17250/ (last updated 10/1/2025).