Filed Date: July 21, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) use of I-220A as a release mechanism.
The plaintiffs in this case are three Cuban nationals who were apprehended while entering the United States and processed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Under Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the plaintiffs were subject to mandatory detention until the conclusion of their removal proceedings. The plaintiffs allege that ICE unlawfully deviated from this mandatory detention scheme and released them under an improper classification that denied them parolee status. This misclassification excluded the plaintiffs from eligibility for immigration benefits, including adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA). The plaintiffs further allege that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) refused to adjudicate their adjustment of status applications due to ICE’s misrepresentation of their legal custody status.
The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); the President of the United States; and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). The complaint raised the following claims:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that their classification via I-220A documentation is unlawful, an injunction preventing ICE from systematically misrepresenting their immigration status, and a permanent injunction barring the defendants from re-detaining them based on their current immigration status. They also requested that their right to seek lawful permanent residency under the CAA be preserved.
On July 21, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary relief, asking the court to "prevent defendants from continuing unlawful enforcement actions... based on misclassified or manipulated immigration records." The court delayed ruling on the motion and ordered the defendants to combine their pending motion to dismiss with their opposition to the plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief.
The defendants submitted a single filing that combined their Motion to Dismiss with their Opposition to the plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on August 29, 2025.
On October 1, 2025, in In re: Stay of Civil Proceedings Involving the United States in Light of Lapse of Appropriations, Judge James E. Boasberg determined that the current lapse in appropriations justified extending deadlines in cases involving the United States under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 (Standing Order 25-55). He ordered that, as of October 1:
On the same day, the defendants filed a notice informing the court of a lapse in appropriations, stating that they interpreted Stay Order (25-55) as extending their current deadline to file a reply brief. Subsequently, on October 6, 2025, Judge Reggie B. Walton issued an order staying the defendants’ deadline to file their reply in support of the motion to dismiss until further notice from the court. Deadlines were reset on November 17.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jinan Abufarha (8/6/2025)
Dahlia Gottlieb (12/3/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70870317/parties/hernandez-v-noem/
HERNANDEZ, TONY HOYOS (District of Columbia)
HERNANDEZ, DANIS ELY (District of Columbia)
LEYVA, GREICEL AVILA (District of Columbia)
Hudak, Brian P. (District of Columbia)
Jones, Sian (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70870317/hernandez-v-noem/
Last updated Dec. 22, 2025, 1:11 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 21, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Three Cuban nationals who were apprehended near the border filed this suit.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
United States (- United States (national) -), Federal
Enforcement and Removal Operations (- United States (national) -), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-02344
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: