Judge blocks Trump from withholding funds from 16 'sanctuary' cities, counties

April 24 (Reuters) - A federal judge in San Francisco on Thursday blocked Donald Trump's administration from withholding federal funding from several so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that have declined to cooperate with the Republican president's hardline immigration crackdown. U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the injunction at the request of 16 cities and counties nationally led by San Francisco that in a lawsuit filed in February argued that the administration was unlawfully trying to force local officials to cooperate with federal immigration arrests. Those jurisdictions include the cities of Minneapolis, New Haven, Portland, St. Paul, Santa Fe and Seattle. They argue that the administration is seeking to punish them for exercising their rights to limit the use of their resources for federal civil immigration enforcement. More: Trump administration will investigate state and local officials who hinder immigration crackdown The lawsuit challenged an executive order Trump signed that threatened to cut off federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions that limit or refuse to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The localities sued a day after the U.S. Department of Justice sued the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago, seeking a court order blocking so-called sanctuary laws that the Democratic-led jurisdictions adopted that it said were interfering with Trump's agenda. WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 24: U.S. President Donald Trump waits for the arrival of Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store to the White House on April 24, 2025 in Washington, DC. The leaders are expected to discuss security, trade, NATO and the war in Ukraine. Sanctuary laws prevent state and local law enforcement from assisting federal civil immigration officers. The Justice Department has since then also filed a lawsuit challenging a New York law that bars the Democratic-led state from sharing vehicle and address information with federal immigration authorities.

3 ways Trump's immigration crackdown could hit U.S. citizens

Trump administration officials are suggesting their immigration crackdown could expand to include deporting convicted U.S. citizens and charging anyone — not just immigrants — who criticizes Trump's policies. Why it matters: Such moves — described by officials in recent days — would show how U.S. citizens could be impacted by the growing number of tactics President Trump is using to, in his view, improve national security. They'd also be certain to ignite new legal battles over how far Trump's team can go in fighting illegal immigration and responding to dissenters. Zoom in: Here are three tactics the administration has teased that legal analysts say would challenge Americans' rights: 1. Sending convicted U.S. citizens to prisons abroad. This has been floated as a spinoff of Trump's deal with El Salvador, where a high-security prison is holding about 300 U.S. immigration detainees that the administration says are suspected criminals and gang members. "Homegrowns are next," Trump said during an Oval Office meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele last week, referring to sending Americans convicted of crimes to serve time in foreign prisons. "We always have to obey the laws," Trump said, "but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies over the head ... I'd like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country." Trump's suggestion — echoing a similar proposal Bukele made to Secretary of State Marco Rubio in February — drew a storm of criticism from legal advocates, who called it unconstitutional. 2. Putting critics of the administration's policies in jeopardy. Some officials say U.S. citizens who criticize administration policies could be charged with crimes, based on the notion that they're aiding terrorists and criminals. "You have to ask yourself, are they technically aiding and abetting them, because aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists is a crime," White House senior director for counterterrorism Seb Gorka said in an interview with Newsmax. Trump's team also has questioned the legality of civic groups providing immigrants with "know your rights" trainings on how to respond to federal agents. Border czar Tom Homan suggested that such seminars help people evade law enforcement. "They're trying to use terrorism laws to attack people for their speech and for their political activism, and that's an authoritarian effort," said Kerri Talbot, co-executive director of the Immigration Hub, an immigration advocacy group. 3. Questioning the authority of court orders. The administration's resistance to returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia — who was legally in the U.S. with an order not to be deported back to El Salvador, but deported to the prison there anyway — has raised questions about how far Trump's team can go in trying to skirt court orders. The White House says the decision to return Abrego Garcia rests with El Salvador because the U.S. Supreme Court told the administration only to "facilitate" his return, not "effectuate" it. Advocates worry the resulting confusion has laid the groundwork for Trump's team to send a U.S. citizen to a foreign prison, then claim that person couldn't be returned. A federal judge raised this concern in Abrego Garcia's case. "If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?" wrote Judge Harvie Wilkinson III. "And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies?" What they're saying: Michelle Brané, former executive director of the Biden administration's Family Reunification Task Force, echoed Wilkinson. "If they can send a noncitizen to a prison in El Salvador without due process ... why would a U.S. citizen be safer?" The White House didn't respond to a request for comment. But officials have argued that they have an electoral mandate for stricter immigration enforcement, and that opposition to their policies is against the will of voters. Trump's handling of immigration polls well in public surveys. But sending immigrants to El Salvador's prison without criminal convictions or due process does not — about 60% were opposed in a recent YouGov survey. Between the lines: U.S. citizens have been mistakenly detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) before, including cases this month in Arizona and Florida. "People are realizing that this is going to impact all communities," Talbot said, "and that if one citizen can be picked up, then any of us can be picked up and put into proceedings, or labeled a terrorist, or removed to a foreign prison."

The IRS-ICE agreement: Trump shoots US economy in the foot

Washington, DC – Below is a column by Maribel Hastings from America’s Voice en Español translated to English from Spanish. It ran in several Spanish-language media outlets earlier this week: This Tax Week, the negative consequences of the agreement between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and ICE, to share information about undocumented taxpayers, carries special urgency, both in matters of privacy as well as the loss of billions of dollars in federal, state, and local tax payments if people without documents stop paying taxes or are deported. Last week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) presented an analysis that concludes that “every 10-percentage point drop in the income tax compliance rate of undocumented immigrants would lower federal tax revenue by $8.6 billion per year, and state and local tax collections by $900 million per year.” That’s a combined reduction of $9.5 billion annually. A thirty percentage point drop in the tax compliance rate would lead to a $25.9 billion annual reduction in payments to the federal government and $2.6 billion to state and local governments. These figures should alarm the Trump administration, which has proposed not only an anti-immigrant policy but one that is, in many cases, illegal and unconstitutional, in its obsessive crusade against immigrants of color. The IRS-ICE agreement allows the agency charged with collecting taxes to share data, which until now has been kept secret, with the immigration agency — data about the contributors who fill out their tax declarations using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS gives out to some categories of noncitizens who cannot obtain a Social Security number. The idea is to locate them and deport them. Various high-level IRS officials, including the acting IRS Commissioner, Melanie Krause, resigned because the agreement clearly violates federal laws that protect the privacy of taxpayers’ information, independent of their immigration status. Only Congress can request that the information be revealed under special circumstances, but not for immigration matters. The agreement should also worry citizens and authorized residents because no one knows to what end the federal government wants to access tax information. Ignoring these developments, and arguing that they will only affect undocumented people, is playing with fire. This contributes to eroding protections and individual rights, especially before a Trump administration that neither respects due process, nor what the courts rule, including the highest court in the land. This has been proven in Trump’s reluctance to bring back a legal Maryland resident, Salvadoran Kilmar Ábrego García, who was deported “by mistake” to the infamous CECOT prison in El Salvador, even though the nation’s Supreme Court ruled that the administration should “facilitate” the return of the young man who is married to a U.S. citizen and the father of three U.S. citizen children. But to analyze the possible effects of the IRS-ICE agreement on government coffers in just dollars and cents, we do not have to go very far. These days, stories abound in the media of accountants saying that their undocumented clients are asking if it would be safe to file their taxes, in the face of fear that they will be detained and deported. Or experts warning about the loss of revenue at all levels. According to the American Immigration Council, “in 2023, households led by undocumented immigrants paid $89.8B in total taxes. This includes $33.9B in state and local taxes and $55.8B in federal taxes.” In 2022, combined taxes totaled almost $100B, according to ITEP. Also in 2022, “undocumented immigrants paid $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes, $6.4 billion in Medicare taxes, and $1.8 billion in unemployment insurance taxes,” ITEP reported. These are benefits to which they are not entitled. With the IRS-ICE agreement and mass deportations, Trump, once again, shoots the US economy in the foot.

Trump measures make life more difficult for immigrants — not just undocumented

The Trump administration is waging a concerted pressure campaign against undocumented immigrants — as well as hundreds of thousands here legally whose status it is trying to revoke. The measures threaten to make daily life more untenable for millions as President Donald Trump aims to carry out the immigrant purging he promised during his campaign. Trump has escalated his clampdown on immigrants beyond what was done during his first presidential term, which included separating children from their parents at the border, working to build a border wall between the United States and Mexico and curbing legal immigration through fewer visas and refugee admissions. This time around, on top of immigration raids and arrests, the administration is inflicting hardship on immigrants by pulling multiple levers of government to undercut their day-to-day lives. The administration is threatening criminal charges against immigrants without legal status who do not register with the government. It has given Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to previously confidential taxpayer information to locate immigrants and canceled Social Security numbers of thousands of immigrants by marking “illegal immigrants” as being dead. Officials have canceled parole that the Biden administration granted to some groups. A federal judge has blocked the revocations temporarily. “What we are seeing now is this full-court press by the government on immigration,” said Michael Lukens, executive director of the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, a nonprofit immigrant rights advocacy organization whose funding to provide legal help to unaccompanied immigrant children Trump cut. The many actions are all parts of the administration’s strategy to subtract as many immigrants from the United States as possible without having to go through more cumbersome deportation processes. The Trump actions build on an “attrition through enforcement” strategy tried in 2010 with state anti-immigration laws, a strategy pushed by Kris Kobach, a former attorney general of Kansas who has championed conservative causes. Data obtained by NBC News shows that the Trump administration’s deportations are running slightly behind deportations under President Joe Biden at the same time last year, even though Trump has made mass deportations one of his main priorities since he assumed office. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made it clear recently what level of departures the administration wants to see. At a recent Cabinet meeting, she said, “We got 20, 21 million people that need to go home." Republicans and conservatives have long used about 20 million as the number of undocumented people in the country, though longtime analyses have pegged the number at closer to 11 million to 12 million. As is evident in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia — a Maryland man who a Justice Department official said was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador — the administration is willing to push the edge of the legal envelope to meet its mass deportation goal. At a contentious hearing Tuesday, a U.S. district judge ordered the administration to provide evidence of any steps it has taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. "Over 77 million people delivered a resounding Election Day mandate in November to secure our borders, mass deport criminal illegal migrants, and enforce our immigration laws," White House spokesman Kush Desai told NBC News in a statement. "The Trump administration is aligned on a whole-of-government approach to deliver on this mandate to once again put Americans and America First.” He did not respond to questions about criticism of the administration's actions or about any spillover effects on U.S. citizens. 'Taking people's legal status away' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Tuesday that Trump would sign an order preventing undocumented immigrants from getting Social Security benefits. But undocumented immigrants, and many people legally working, are already prohibited from receiving Social Security payouts or Medicare, said Marielena Hincapié, a distinguished immigration fellow and visiting scholar at Cornell Law School. She said Trump's latest order is "continued fearmongering and disinformation because, in fact, undocumented immigrants pay into Social Security but are never eligible to get those benefits." "On the one hand, the rhetoric of Trump has been about focusing on the undocumented immigrants and the worst 'criminals,' etc., but what we've actually seen from a policymaking perspective is they are actually taking people's legal status away," Hincapié said. There are immigrants in the United States with different forms of legal status, such as Temporary Protected Status or work authorization that was granted while they were awaiting asylum claim outcomes, which makes them eligible to apply for Social Security numbers. But getting Social Security numbers does not mean they are eligible for benefits, Hincapié said. Recommended Latino Family files first lawsuit over deadly roof collapse in Dominican Republic nightclub "There are separate laws dating all the way to the 1996 welfare reform law that indicate who is eligible for what program, and for most people, you have to have been a legal permanent resident — a green card holder — for at least five years to be a qualified legal immigrant that is eligible for certain benefits," she said. The administration has threatened penalties against undocumented immigrants 14 and older who fail to register with the government and carry proof they registered with them. To register, they must fill out a form that asks them not only about any crimes they may have been arrested for or charged with, but also any they committed but for which they were not prosecuted, said Bill Hing, founder of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. The law to register has existed for decades but had not previously been enforced. Hing questioned how Trump would enforce the required registration, because, he said, trying to get someone indicted for not carrying registration papers would complicate and lengthen a deportation process. He acknowledged that the administration might try to make an example of a case or two. But the requirement "is a mechanism to induce people, to coerce people, into exposing themselves," he said. In addition, Hing said, if he were representing people arrested for failing to register, he would argue they have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, since they are asked to admit to crimes when they fill out the forms. "I don't know about you, but I've jaywalked. I've sped," he said. "I think someone being prosecuted has a very good Fifth Amendment argument not to register." While the immigration crackdown actions are aimed at immigrants, they are affecting citizens, too. In early April, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner posted on social media that he had directed HUD offices to ensure HUD programs do not benefit undocumented immigrants. People here illegally cannot get federal subsidized housing. But an estimated 25,000 families in public housing include at least one U.S. citizen and at least one person without legal immigration status, according to the National Housing Law Project, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization. The citizen would be eligible for the housing. Marie Claire Tran-Leung, an attorney for the National Housing Law Project, said Trump and Turner are trying to deploy HUD "to scare immigrant families into self-evicting." Whether the administration's measures will force out enough immigrants to satisfy Trump and his base is unknown. But Hincapié said that with the administration moving “so rapidly” and in a “chaotic way,” some U.S. citizens may get caught in the immigration dragnet. For instance, some could end up wrongly classified as dead and their Social Security numbers put in the agency's death file, she said. "Are they going to do the same thing they are doing with Kilmar [Abrego Garcia] of saying, 'Oops, sorry, we made a mistake and we can't do anything about it now'?" For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Judge gives Trump administration 24 hours to provide evidence of Mahmoud Khalil's removability

An immigration judge has given lawyers representing the Department of Homeland Security a little over 24 hours to provide Mahmoud Khalil's legal team with evidence that he is removable from the U.S. under the allegations lobbed against him. Khalil, a legal permanent resident with a green card, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at his Columbia University housing in New York last month. Khalil, a leader of the encampment protests at Columbia last spring, was detained on March 8, then taken to an immigration detention facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, before ending up in a Louisiana detention center, his attorneys said. Amid Farahi/AFP via Getty Images, FILE Signs in support of detained graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, are readied during the nationwide "Hands Off!" protest against President Donald Trump and his advisor, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, in Washington, DC, on April 5, 2025. Amid Farahi/AFP via Getty Images, FILE At an immigration hearing in Jena, Louisiana, on Tuesday, Judge Jamee Comans set another hearing for Friday to give Khalil's team time to review the evidence and respond to it. Comans said she will then make a determination whether he is removable or order him to be released. In a statement released several hours after the hearing, Khalil's lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout criticized the timeline, arguing the government hasn't produced "a single shred of evidence" to support its allegations. "Yet the Immigration judge today stated she intends to rule Friday on the merits of this outlandish charge with no realistic opportunity for Mahmoud and his lawyers to contest this baseless charge," Van Der Hout said in a statement. "If this turns out to be what happens Friday, it would be an uncalled for rush to judgement that would completely deprive Mahmoud of any due process, which is a foundation of our legal system.” The court hearing earlier Tuesday grew tense at times, with the judge at one point saying there were nearly 600 people waiting to attend the virtual hearing that was reserved for legal parties only, saying this was highly unusual. MORE: Judge rejects government's request to move Mahmoud Khalil's case to Louisiana Noting the public interest in the case, Van Der Hout asked the judge to consider making future hearings accessible to the public, but she refused and said she was considering making all future hearings "in-person only" so all of his lawyers would need to attend in person. Khalil was seated wearing a blue jumpsuit. He only said a handful of words throughout the hearing. At one point he asked the judge if his wife, Noor Abdalla, could also be allowed to have access to the video feed. "Your honor, I would appreciate if you could let my wife in," he asked. When she was let in, Abdalla was shown on the big screen. Khalil turned to look at her and then returned his gaze to the front of the room. Khalil's wife is due to give birth within "a couple of weeks," according to Van Der Hout. During the last hearing, Khalil's lawyers were granted continuance to give additional time to review the allegations raised against him in the Notice to Appear filed by DHS. David Dee Delgado/Reuters, FILE Muslim protesters pray outside the main campus of Columbia University during a demonstration to denounce the immigration arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist who helped lead protests against Israel at the university, in New York City, March 14, 2025. David Dee Delgado/Reuters, FILE Comans again grew agitated when Van Der Hout asked for continuance a second time and claimed lawyers representing DHS had not provided evidence to back up the allegations against his client. "We have not received a single document from them," he said. He urged the judge to allow him more time, saying "we can not plead" until they knew the evidence they had against Khalil. But Comans denied his request and ordered Van Der Hout to enter Khalil's plea for over 12 allegations on the spot. The allegations ranged from procedural, such as "You are a native of Syria and a citizen of Algeria," to accusations that he withheld information from DHS about his alleged membership in the Columbia University Apartheid Divest group. MORE: Trump administration claims Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil misrepresented information on green card application He was also asked to respond to the DHS claim that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had found Khalil's "presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States." Van Der Hout responded "deny" for each allegation. Comans conveyed a sense of urgency to get these issues resolved, noting Khalil had already spent several weeks in detention. She told both parties she was "not going to keep him detained" while they argued over his removability. The court room was packed with reporters and a handful of supporters. One of them was told she needed to take off her keffiyeh before she walked into the courtroom. As the hearing was adjourned, Khalil turned back to wave and smile at the group of supporters and press that were trickling out of room. He smiled and waved a peace sign at one of his supporters. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Judge orders US to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back from El Salvador prison

GREENBELT, Md. ― In a blow to the Trump administration, a federal judge ruled Friday the U.S. government acted illegally when it mistakenly deported a Maryland father to El Salvador and ordered that he must be returned to the United States. “This was an illegal act,” U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland said of the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Xinis gave the administration until 11:59 p.m. Monday to remove Abrego Garcia from the violent El Salvador prison where he is being held and return him to U.S. soil. Abrego Garcia, 29, was among the hundreds of alleged members of crime gangs MS-13 and Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua the government expelled from the U.S. to El Salvador last month. Abrego Garcia, who had fled El Salvador as a teenager to escape gang violence, was pulled over by federal immigration agents near his home in Beltsville, Maryland, on March 12 and arrested. Three days later, he was expelled and sent back to El Salvador even though he had won a court order six years earlier barring his removal. The Trump administration acknowledged in court records earlier this week that his deportation was a mistake, which it attributed to an “administrative error.” But the U.S. government says it has no jurisdiction to order his return because he is in a foreign country. 'Devastated and confused': A Maryland dad was sent to El Salvador prison by mistake. Can his community get him back? Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, and their 5-year-old son, who are both U.S. citizens, sued the government demanding his return. During a hearing on Friday, Xinis ripped into Justice Department lawyers over Abrego Garcia's arrest and questioned the government's claim it could not get him back. If federal authorities were able to strike terms and conditions for his placement in El Salvador, "then certainly they have the functional control to unwind the decision – the wrong decision," she said. Get the Daily Briefing newsletter in your inbox. The day's top stories, from sports to movies to politics to world events. Delivery: Daily Your Email Erez Reuveni, the Justice Department’s attorney, conceded under questioning from Xinis that Abrego Garcia should not have been expelled and said he also had questioned why the government could not bring him back to the U.S. "My answer to a lot of these questions is going to be frustrating, and I am frustrated,” Reuveni said. A wife struggles: Trump banished her husband to El Salvador. Work and worry are all she has left. Xinis also questioned the government's claim that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13. “In a court of law, when someone is accused in such a violent and predatory organization, it comes in the form of an indictment, complaint, a criminal proceeding that has then a robust process so that we can assess the facts," she said. "I haven’t heard that from the government." While the judge sparred with the government's lawyers, Vasquez Sura sat at a table with her family's attorneys, a box of tissues next to her. Afterward, she left the courthouse to applause from supporters who rallied outside to call for her husband's return. “We will continue this fight to get my husband back,” Vasquez Sura said in brief remarks in Spanish following the judge's decision. Lawyers for the federal government have appealed the case to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested Xinis should contact El Salvador President Nayib Bukele "because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador." Immigration rights groups condemn deportation Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, was detained by federal immigration agents while his son, pictured here, was in the backseat. The Trump administration has said his deportation to a notorious prison in El Salvador was a clerical error. Abrego Garcia's deportation was complicated by the fact that a court order issued in a separate case six years ago had barred his expulsion. In March 2019, he was arrested outside a Home Depot in Hyattsville, Maryland, where he was looking for work, after a confidential informant testified that he was an active member of the MS-13 gang, according to government lawyers. His attorneys say he was not a member of MS-13, and the government offered scant evidence to back up its claim. 'A plain abuse of power": ICE detains grandmother who hid in churches during first Trump administration A court ordered him deported to El Salvador, but Abrego Garcia applied for asylum, asking for protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. In court filings, he said he had come to the United States because the Barrio 18 gang, which is rivals with MS-13, was extorting and threatening him and his family for their pupusa business in their San Salvador neighborhood and pressuring him to join the gang. A U.S. immigration judge found he was deportable but issued an order in October 2019 that protected him from removal. Abrego Garcia’s arrest and deportation to El Salvador has been condemned by immigrant rights advocates and others. Minutes before Friday's hearing, chants led by people in pink vests – reading “Rapid Response Choir” –could be heard from the rally gathered outside the federal courthouse in suburban Maryland. A few police officers stood to the side. The chants, calling for Abrego Garcia's release, continued after the hearing began. A man identified by Jennifer Vasquez Sura as her husband, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is led by force by guards through the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador. Attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, who represented the family during the hearing, said they’ve had no contact Abrego Garcia, nor have attorneys the family hired in El Salvador. Sandoval-Moshenberg urged the government to comply with the order to bring Abrego Garcia back. He also said it’d be unlikely Abrego Garcia would get sent to another country, given there’s a court order blocking the administration from deporting people to countries they’re not from. But Sandoval-Moshenberg said he wouldn’t declare victory until Abrego Garcia is back in the U.S. Abrego Garcia's supporters, however, celebrated the judge's ruling. “This government tried to disappear Kilmar Abrego Garcia,” said the Rev. Michael Vanacore of Pilgrim United Church of Christ in nearby Wheaton, Maryland. “It was very important to hear his name read aloud in positive judgment by the court, saying that he should be returned.” 'Uncertainty and even fear': Trump's expanded ICE raids are causing big problems for some schools At the rally, Vanacore recited a phrase familiar to other Latinos whose loved ones are gone: Saying “presente” after the missing person’s name. “Kilmar Abrego Garcia, presente,” he said in Spanish, pleading to God for his safe return. Immigration lawyers call ruling significant Abrego Garcia's case was one example of the fits and starts the Trump administration has gone through in strengthening immigration enforcement. A federal judge in the District of Columbia has temporarily blocked the deportation of alleged members of Venezuela's crime gang Tren de Aragua until they have a chance to deny their membership. Three judges in different states have blocked Trump's order denying citizenship to the children of immigrants who have no legal authorization to be in the country. Ben Johnson, executive director of the group American Immigration Lawyers Association, said Friday's ruling will show whether the administration or the courts will correct mistakes in the Trump administration’s policy aiming for mass deportations. “This is a very big deal because it’s going to tell us whether either the administration is going to follow judicial orders or whether any of the mistakes that the administration makes are irreparable,” Johnson said. “Because the administration is doing so much of this in secret, it’s very hard to know what the remedies are for getting this wrong.” Linda Dakin-Grimm, an immigration lawyer in Los Angeles, said the case is significant because the administration is resisting it. “Other administrations might have just returned the guy and killed the issue,” Dakin-Grimm said. Another significant aspect of the Maryland case is how quickly swiftly the judge reached a decision – in days rather than months or years, she said. “What strikes me is how quickly this happened,” Dakin-Grimm said. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

USCIS Forms Update Notice

Good afternoon, We recently updated the following USCIS form(s): Form I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) 01/20/2025 10:37 AM EST Edition Date: 01/20/25. Starting May 1, 2025, we will accept only the 01/20/25 edition. Until then, you can also use the 04/01/24 edition. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions. Form I-131A, Application for Carrier Documentation 01/20/2025 09:26 AM EST Edition Date: 01/20/25. Starting May 1, 2025, we will accept only the 01/20/25 edition. Until then, you can also use the 04/01/24 edition. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions. Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal 01/20/2025 08:59 AM EST Edition Date: 01/20/25. Starting May 1, 2025, we will accept only the 01/20/25 edition. Until then, you can also use the 04/01/24 edition. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions. Form I-602, Application by Refugee for Waiver of Inadmissibility Grounds 01/20/2025 08:47 AM EST Edition Date: 01/20/25. Starting May 1, 2025, we will accept only the 01/20/25 edition. Until then, you can also use the 04/01/24 edition. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions. For more information, please visit our Forms Updates page.

USCIS Updates Policy to Recognize Two Biological Sexes

WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is updating the USCIS Policy Manual to clarify that it only recognizes two biological sexes, male and female. Consistent with the Jan. 20, 2025, executive order, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, USCIS is returning to its historical policy of recognizing two biological sexes. “There are only two sexes — male and female,” said DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin. “President Trump promised the American people a revolution of common sense, and that includes making sure that the policy of the U.S. government agrees with simple biological reality. Proper management of our immigration system is a matter of national security, not a place to promote and coddle an ideology that permanently harms children and robs real women of their dignity, safety, and well-being.” Under this guidance, USCIS considers a person’s sex as that which is generally evidenced on the birth certificate issued at or nearest to the time of birth. If the birth certificate issued at or nearest to the time of birth indicates a sex other than male or female, USCIS will base the determination of sex on secondary evidence. See Volume 1, General Policies and Procedures, Part E, Adjudications, Chapter 6, Evidence, Section B, Primary and Secondary Evidence [1 USCIS-PM E.6(B)]. USCIS will not deny benefits solely because the benefit requestor did not properly indicate his or her sex. However, USCIS does not issue documents with a blank sex field, and does not issue documents with a sex different than the sex as generally evidenced on a birth certificate issued at the time of birth (or issued nearest to the time of birth). Therefore, if a benefit requestor does not indicate his or her sex or indicates a sex different from the sex on his or her birth certificate issued at the time of birth (or issued nearest to the time of birth), there may be delays in adjudication. USCIS may provide notice to benefit requestors if it issues a USCIS document reflecting a sex different than that indicated by the benefit requestor on the request. This guidance, contained in Volumes 1, 11, and 12 of the Policy Manual, is effective immediately and applies to benefit requests pending or filed on or after April 2, 2025. The guidance contained in the Policy Manual is controlling and supersedes any related prior guidance. For more information, see the Policy Alert.

Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification

Edition Date: 01/20/25. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions.

Employers may also use the following previous editions:
• Form I-9 with an 08/01/23 edition date, valid until its expiration date of 05/31/2027; and
• Form I-9 with an 08/01/23 edition date, valid until its expiration date of 07/31/2026.

You can find the expiration date at the top of the page on the form and instructions.

Employers using an electronic version of Form I-9 must update their systems with the version that has the expiration date of 05/31/2027 by 07/31/2026.

Edition dates are listed in mm/dd/yy format.

Expiration dates are listed in mm/dd/yyyy format.