Filed Date: May 30, 2019
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On May 30, 2019, asylum seekers detained under the jurisdiction of the New Orleans ICE Field Office filed this class action lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act and 28 U.S.C.§§ 1361 and 1651 against the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); the Acting Director of ICE; the Acting Executive Associate Director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations; and the Acting Director of the New Orleans ICE Field Office. Represented by the ACLU of Louisiana and Southern Poverty Law Center, the plaintiffs argued that DHS had ignored a 2009 Parole Directive, denying parole to more than 98% of arriving asylum seekers. The plaintiffs also argued that the New Orleans ICE Field Office conducted sham parole reviews and blanket denials of parole, violating their Due Process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the defendants from detaining the plaintiffs without individualized parole reviews that determined the risk of flight or danger to the community. The plaintiffs' proposed class was "all arriving asylum seekers who receive positive credible fear determinations; and who are or will be detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; after having been denied parole by the New Orleans ICE Field Office."
On May 30, 2019, the case was related to Damus v. Neilsen here.
On June 28, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to certify class, proposing that the class be defined as: "(1) all arriving asylum seekers (2) who are found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture and (3) who are or will be detained by U.S. Immigration and Customers Enforcement; (4) after having been denied parole under the authority of the New Orleans ICE Field Office."
On July 18, 2019, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from continuing to detain asylum seekers without individualized consideration of flight risk or danger to the community.
On August 5, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that some of the plaintiffs were no longer in ICE custody, others had had their parole requests adjudicated, and additional plaintiffs were no longer eligible for parole.
On September 5, 2019, Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. In granting the preliminary injunction, Judge Boasberg found that the New Orleans ICE Field Office had ceased to follow the 2009 Directive. Class certification was granted because the proposed class met the requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants' motion to dismiss was only granted in regards to plaintiffs' due process claim. 2019 WL 4225322.
On November 1, 2019, the defendants filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court. On November 18, 2019, the appeal was docketed as 19-5306.
On January 9, 2020, Judge Boasberg issued an order directing the defendants to distribute copies of the class notice to all provisional class members.
On March 31, 2020, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs sought to compel the defendants to conduct immediate case by case parole assessments for all class members to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs also requested that defendants be required to consider the risk of COVID-19 to individuals when conducting their individualized assessment.
On April 7, 2020, the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. They argued that the motion should be denied because plaintiffs had failed to show that ICE had violated the Parole Directive, had failed to establish irreparable harm if they were not given new parole reviews, and that the plaintiffs' request was not in the public interest.
On April 8, the plaintiffs filed their reply to the defendants' memorandum. The plaintiffs pointed out that the COVID-19 pandemic continued to worsen and that the continuation of blanket parole denials put the health of plaintiffs and detention officials at the risk of irreparable harm.
On April 21, 2020, Judge Boasberg denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that the court had already enjoined the defendants to follow their Parole Directive, and thus it was unnecessary to do so again. The court left open the possibility that plaintiffs could file a motion for contempt asserting that defendants had not complied with the court's original injunction.
The plaintiffs did just that and filed a motion for order to show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt for violating the 2019 preliminary injunction order, expedited discovery, and the appointment of a special master on May 12. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants continued to disregard the Parole Directive in violation of the preliminary injunction. They claimed that parole grant rates remained below 25% for redetermination applications and below 20% for first-time applicants and in some cases facilities held zero parole redeterminations in March and April. In their response filed on June 16, the defendants argued that in the recent months ICE had granted parole at rates closer to 30% and that there was not clear and convincing evidence that they were not following the preliminary injunction.
Meanwhile, in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the defendants filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal on June 16. The D.C. Circuit granted the motion and dismissed the appeal on June 29. 2020 WL 3635095.
Back in the district court, on July 22, 2020, Judge Boasberg granted the plaintiffs’ motion seeking discovery regarding compliance with the preliminary injunction, a finding of contempt, and appointment of a Special Master in part. He found the plaintiffs raised sufficient question of compliance and ordered limited discovery. He denied without prejudice the motion with respect to the finding of contempt and the appointment of a special master, with these requests to be renewed following discovery and a potential hearing on the defendants’ violations. 2020 WL 4201596. The parties then began engaging in limited discovery with a joint status report on the discovery due October 30, 2020.
As the parties engaged in limited discovery, on August 20, 2020, The Center for Investigative Report filed a motion to intervene to unseal the defendants’ monthly production of parole determinations and any future productions in order to inform the public debate over DHS’s application of parole procedures to asylum seekers. Judge Boasberg granted the motion to intervene on October 5. He ordered for DHS’s future monthly submissions to include a public version of the parole determinations without personally identifiable information and for DHS to file redacted versions of prior reports. 2020 WL 5891424.
The parties continued to file joint status reports in the district court throughout 2021-2024 as they were engaged in settlement discussions. In an August 2024 status report, the parties noted that they were finalizing a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement was signed by the parties on September 23, 2024.
The parties then submitted the settlement agreement to the court for preliminary approval on October 23, 2024. The settlement provided that the defendants would comply with the standards and procedures of the 2009 Parole Directive until it was amended, modified, rescinded, or terminated. It also provided for guidelines should ICE issue a new directive affecting parole for arriving noncitizens. The settlement agreement also noted that ICE would provide periodic reports to the New Orleans ICE facility regarding parole activities. Plaintiffs were also set to receive $75,000 per the terms. The settlement agreement was set to remain in effect for two years.
The motion for preliminary approval was subsequently granted by the court on October 24, 2024. A fairness hearing regarding the settlement agreement was set for January 24, 2025. However, this date was later vacated and was set for March 12, 2025. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for miscellaneous relief, wherein the plaintiffs sought an order directing the parties to re-negotiate certain provisions of the September 2024 settlement agreement or, alternatively, an order to “allow briefing on the issue of limited discovery concerning compliance with the 2009 Parole Directive and this Court’s Preliminary Injunction.” The defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to this motion.
As a result, the March 12 fairness hearing was also vacated by the court, and a continuance was granted. The case remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
Cedar Hobbs (4/7/2020)
Averyn Lee (9/9/2020)
Emily Kempa (11/8/2020)
Zofia Peach (3/3/2021)
Venesa Haska (11/25/2023)
Kavitha Babu (4/9/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15700683/parties/heredia-mons-v-mcaleenan/
Boasberg, James Emanuel (District of Columbia)
Ahmed, Nora Sam (Louisiana)
Bauer, Mary C. (Virginia)
Baranetsky, Victoria (California)
Baranetsky, Diana Victoria (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15700683/heredia-mons-v-mcaleenan/
Last updated Feb. 21, 2026, 1:28 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 30, 2019
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All arriving asylum seekers who are found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture and who are or will be detained by U.S. Immigration and Customers Enforcement after having been denied parole under the authority of the New Orleans ICE Field Office.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Federal
United States
United States
United States
United States
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:19-cv-01593
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 19-05306
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $75,000
Issues
General/Misc.:
COVID-19:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Placement in detention facilities
Case Summary of Heredia Mons v. McAleenan, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/17469/ (last updated 4/9/2025).