Immigration Lawsuit Filed To Protect H-1B Spouses

A new immigration lawsuit aims to protect the spouses of H-1B visa holders likely to lose work authorization under a new federal rule. The rule ended the automatic extension of employment authorization documents and could lead to employers removing workers from payroll due to expected delays in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services processing. Analysts view the rule as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the labor supply by restricting nearly all elements of the U.S. immigration system. In Donald Trump’s first term, USCIS put a rule on the agenda to end work authorization for H-4 spouses and set up new policies that created enormous delays in approving work permits for the spouses. Employment authorization documents allow individuals to work lawfully in the United States. While a lawful permanent resident or naturalized citizen has the right to work, a temporary visa holder or other “nonimmigrant” must have employment authorization. To address long processing delays for employment authorization documents, or EADs, the Biden administration published a rule allowing a 540-day automatic extension if USCIS did not complete processing an EAD application before the work permit expired. The new Trump administration rule overturned that regulation for new applications. The complaint argues the rule was unlawful. Other recent actions to restrict high-skilled individuals and other temporary visa holders include imposing a $100,000 fee on the entry of new H-1B visa holders and a rule restricting international students by replacing the current “duration of status” policy with fixed admission periods. PROMOTED The Lawsuit Against The Immigration Rule Ending Automatic Extensions A complaint filed on behalf of seven dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders alleges the Department of Homeland Security published an unlawful rule on October 30, 2025. DHS published an interim final rule, which means the agency did not go through the normal notice and comment rulemaking process. Jon Wasden of Wasden Law and San Marino, California-based attorney Justin Tseng represent the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed on Jan. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. The lawsuit’s goal, Wasden said in an interview, is for a judge to vacate the rule nationwide and for USCIS to return to automatic extensions of employment authorization documents. The complaint makes several arguments. First, the plaintiffs explain that the Biden administration’s rule on automatic extension resulted from actions taken during Donald Trump’s first term that caused long delays for processing extensions of EADs. DHS, through USCIS, established biometric requirements that plaintiffs in an earlier lawsuit alleged were designed to deprive H-1B spouses of their ability to work. MORE FOR YOU U.S. Immigration Service Issues Guidance On Who Pays The $100,000 H-1B Fee New Trump Immigration Policy: Ending The H-1B Visa Lottery Trump Deals A New Immigration Blow To International Students Frase By Forbes In 2022, DHS settled a class action lawsuit, Edakunni v. Mayorkas. As part of the lawsuit, DHS stopped the re-collection of biometrics (DHS had already collected biometrics for the applicants at least once) and returned to processing applications for an H-1B visa holder and his or her spouse at the same time. The agency also published a rule in May 2022 that provided automatic extensions up to 540 days for EADs. Second, the plaintiffs argue that the Oct. 30 interim final rule is “high on platitudinal invocations of national security concerns, but exceedingly low on a factual predicate showing a threat exists, or that the rule will address the threat.” According to the complaint, “The only factual support listed for the national security claims is a non sequitur: an individual in the U.S. pursuant to a lawful status threw a Molotov cocktail at a pro-Palestine rally, while his status extension and EAD renewal were pending.” CEO: C-suite news, analysis, and advice for top decision makers right to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to receive this newsletter, other updates about Forbes and its affiliates’ offerings, our Terms of Service (including resolving disputes on an individual basis via arbitration), and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The plaintiffs assert there is no “nexus” explained between the Molotov cocktail and the EAD’s auto extension. “Afterall, even if EAD auto extension was not available, the cocktail thrower would have still been legally in the country and able to attend the event and commit the offense.” Third, the complaint alleges that DHS “intentionally misrepresents the process” by implying that the agency only vets foreign nationals when USCIS adjudicates a benefit. According to the plaintiffs, “In fact, DHS developed and employed the capacity to screen and vet individuals continuously via the ATLAS system and the Continuous Immigration Vetting programs, which are not discussed in the IFR [interim final rule].” Fourth, the plaintiffs write, “When, in cases like this, the agency does an about face and promulgates a rule that completely contradicts a prior regulation heightened standards are applied.” They also note, “When abandoning a rule, the agency is required to acknowledge reliance interests created by the prior rule. A rule that ignores those interests would be arbitrary and capricious.” The complaint argues failing to vacate the rule will harm the U.S. economy: “The spouses of specialty occupation workers are typically highly educated with professional ambitions and achievements that often match or surpass their H-1B spouses. The National Foundation for American Policy analysis of data indicates that nearly 90% of H4 visa holders have at least a bachelor’s degree, and almost half have a graduate or doctorate degree.” Attorneys for the spouses of H-1B visa holders hope the judge shares their views about the immigration policy that lies behind the DHS rule. “The administration’s true rationale, stripping the ability of people lawfully in the U.S. of the ability to sustain themselves, is embarrassingly obvious.” For more information, visit us at For more information, visit us at.

5 takeaways from new polls of the Minneapolis ICE shooting

After an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis one week ago, reactions on social media and among politicians and political influencers rapidly polarized. But how do the rest of Americans – i.e. those who didn’t so quickly weigh in – feel? We’ve now got a better sense, thanks to three high-quality polls released in the last 24 hours – including a new poll from CNN. Here are a few things we can say. 1. Americans side against ICE You could have been forgiven for thinking the ICE shooting would be a 50-50 issue – or close to it. But it’s not. The CNN poll shows 56% of US adults said the ICE agent’s use of force was “inappropriate,” compared to just 26% who said it was “appropriate.” Similarly, Quinnipiac University and Yahoo News-YouGov polls released Tuesday tested whether people thought the shooting was “justified.” The former showed registered voters said it was “not justified” by 53%-35%, while the latter showed Americans said it wasn’t justified 52%-27%. People march during a demonstration against increased immigration enforcement, days after the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. People march during a demonstration against increased immigration enforcement, days after the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Tim Evans/Reuters So three polls, all with margins of between 18 and 30 points against ICE. That’s a pretty decisive verdict in public opinion. Each poll showed independents said the shooting was wrong by at least a 2-to-1 margin. And Democrats were significantly more likely to object (87% in the CNN poll) than Republicans were to stand by the ICE agent (61%). Most everything the Trump administration is doing these days is unpopular. But these numbers suggest ICE’s use of force is more unpopular than most. And it’s not even as if Trump supporters are united. 2. Just one-quarter echo the administration’s ‘domestic terrorism’ claim But it’s worth emphasizing that the Trump administration didn’t just say the ICE agent, Jonathan Ross, was justified in shooting Good. It went quite a bit further, immediately casting Good’s actions as “domestic terrorism” and saying she intentionally targeted the ICE agent with her car. It’s looking pretty clear that that is out of step with the public’s interpretation of events. The Yahoo-YouGov poll shows just 24% of Americans said Good was committing domestic terrorism. Only 52% of Republicans agreed with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on that. Some in the administration have occasionally seemed to walk back Noem’s claim, allowing that perhaps Good didn’t deliberately target the officer. “Look, I don’t know what’s in a person’s heart or in a person’s head,” Vice President JD Vance conceded last week when pressed on Good’s intent 3. The story has really penetrated In case there was any doubt how big this news was, the polls show Americans are overwhelmingly paying close attention. The Yahoo poll showed 63% said they had heard “a lot” about the situation. And the Quinnipiac poll showed 82% of voters said they’d seen a video of the shooting. Those are huge numbers in an American public that often tunes out political news. For instance, even after the US ousted a foreign leader (Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro) earlier this month, just 42% in a Reuters-Ipsos poll said they had heard “a lot” about it. Marquette University Law School regularly asked such questions throughout 2025. Out of dozens of news events tested, only a handful garnered that much attention. 4. Signs of a growing problem for the administration Indeed, the danger in this episode for the administration is not just that Americans disagree with its posture on the ICE agent. As I wrote last week, the political risk is that this becomes a flashpoint in the debate over ICE and President Donald Trump’s deportation campaign. ICE and Trump’s deportations have polled poorly for a while now, but we haven’t seen a huge backlash in Congress or the streets. In recent days, we’ve started to see some key influencers like Joe Rogan more vocally criticizing the ICE raids. Rogan, who supported Trump in 2024, likened ICE’s actions to the “Gestapo.” The new polls show ICE’s overall numbers haven’t changed much; people disliked the way the agency is enforcing immigration laws before the Minneapolis shooting (57%-39% in a July Quinnipiac poll), and they still dislike it today (57%-40%). But the numbers also suggest the episode could add some urgency to the public’s pre-existing concerns about Trump’s deportations. The CNN poll asked a follow-up for those who labeled the shooting “inappropriate.” It asked whether they believed this was just an isolated incident or whether it “reflects bigger problems with the way ICE is operating.” Fully 9 in 10 critics of this episode chose the latter. So a 51% majority of Americans said not only that the ICE agent’s actions were wrong in this situation, but they attached it to more systemic problems with the agency. Also striking were a pair of poll findings testing views of ICE raids overall: Americans said 51%-31% that ICE’s enforcement actions are making cities “less safe” rather than “more safe,” per the CNN poll. They also said 54%-34% that ICE raids in major US cities are “doing more harm than good,” per the Yahoo poll. That’s two polls showing people think these raids are actually counter-productive – both by 20-point margins. We’ve seen evidence before that Americans think Trump overreached with his deportations and don’t like his administration’s tactics. But not necessarily like this. 5. Noem’s approval is slipping amid nascent impeachment push US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem speaks during a press conference to discuss ICE operations in New York on January 8. US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem speaks during a press conference to discuss ICE operations in New York on January 8. TIMOTHY A.CLARY/AFP/AFP via Getty Images There’s a budding movement in the Democratic Party to potentially target Noem for impeachment. The polls suggest her political stock is declining. Americans disapproved of Noem 61%-38% in the CNN poll and registered voters disapproved 52%-36% in the Quinnipiac poll. The latter suggested Noem has lost ground in recent months. A July Quinnipiac poll showed Noem 11 points underwater (50%-39%), compared to 16 points underwater today. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

US will suspend immigrant visa processing from 75 countries over public assistance concerns

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Wednesday it will suspend the processing of immigrant visas for citizens of 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Somalia, whose nationals the Trump administration has deemed likely to require public assistance while living in the United States. The State Department, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, said it had instructed consular officers to halt immigrant visa applications from the countries affected in accordance with a broader order issued in November that tightened rules around potential immigrants who might become “public charges” in the U.S. The step builds on earlier immigration and travel bans by the administration on nearly 40 countries and is part of President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to tighten U.S. entry standards for foreigners. “The Trump administration is bringing an end to the abuse of America’s immigration system by those who would extract wealth from the American people,” the department said in a statement. “Immigrant visa processing from these 75 countries will be paused while the State Department reassess immigration processing procedures to prevent the entry of foreign nationals who would take welfare and public benefits.” The suspension, which will begin Jan. 21, will not apply to applicants seeking non-immigrant visas, or temporary tourist or business visas, who make up the vast majority of visa seekers. Demand for non-immigrant visas is expected to rise dramatically in the coming months and years due to the upcoming 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics both of which the U.S. will host or co-host. Cable calls for screening of non-immigrant visa applicants A separate notice sent to all U.S. embassies and consulates said that non-immigrant visa applicants should be screened for the possibility that they might seek public benefits in the United States. “With the uncovering of massive public benefits fraud across the United States, the Trump administration is laser-focused on eliminating and preventing fraud in public benefits programs,” said the cable that referred specifically to most non-immigrant visa applications and was sent on Monday. The cable, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, urged consular officers to ensure that foreigners wanting to travel to the U.S. “have been fully vetted and screened” for whether they may rely on public services before they are issued a visa. The cable noted several times that it is up to the applicant to prove that they would not apply for public benefits while in the U.S. and said consular officers who suspect the applicant might apply should require them to fill out a form proving their financial bona fides. President Donald Trump’s administration has already severely restricted immigrant and non-immigrant visa processing for citizens of dozens of countries, many of them in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Consular officials must consider a range of personal details The November guidance on which Wednesday’s decision is based directed U.S. Embassy and consulate officials to comprehensively and thoroughly vet visa applicants to demonstrate that they will not need to rely on public benefits from the government any time after their admission in the U.S. While federal law already required those seeking permanent residency or legal status to prove they wouldn’t be a public charge, Trump in his first term widened the range of benefit programs that could disqualify applicants, and the guidelines in the cable appear to go further in scope. Immigrants seeking entry into the U.S. already undergo a medical exam by a physician who’s been approved by a U.S. Embassy. They are screened for communicable diseases, like tuberculosis, and asked to disclose any history of drug or alcohol use, mental health conditions or violence. They’re also required to have a number of vaccinations. The new directive expanded those with more specific requirements. It said consular officials must consider a range of specific details about people seeking visas, including their age, health, family status, finances, education, skills and any past use of public assistance regardless of the country. It also said they should assess applicants’ English proficiency and can do so by conducting interviews in English. Experts said at the time it could further limit who gets to enter the country at a time when the Republican administration is already tightening those rules. The countries affected by the suspension announced on Wednesday are: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan and Yemen. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

DHS announces termination of protected status for Somalis after group targeted by Trump

The Trump administration announced Tuesday it will end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalis in March, effectively forcing as many as 2,400 people out of the U.S., despite the president's remarks last month that Somalia was "barely a country." Somali migrants with TPS will be required to leave the country by March 17, Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced Tuesday. That is, unless a court pauses the TPS revocation. "Temporary means temporary," Noem wrote in a statement to ABC News. "Country conditions in Somalia have improved to the point that it no longer meets the law's requirement for Temporary Protected Status. Further, allowing Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to our national interests. We are putting Americans first." In this Nov. 17, 2025, file photo, President Donald Trump, is shown with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, at a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C. Win McNamee/Getty Images, FILE The move comes after President Donald Trump has recently criticized Somali immigrants, describing them as "garbage" and saying he doesn't want them in the United States during a Cabinet meeting last month. "We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they're good at is going after ships," Trump said as he addressed supporters in Pennsylvania last month. Trump describes Somali immigrants as 'garbage' amid feud with Minnesota congresswoman, governor The president doubled down on his criticism of the Somali community on Tuesday and threatened to denaturalize anyone convicted of fraud. "We've got a lot of them out already, but we're getting them out. We're also going to revoke the citizenship of any naturalized immigrant from Somalia, or anywhere else, who is convicted of defrauding our citizens," he said during an event in Detroit. "We're going to get them the hell out of here fast." DHS made a reference to Tuesday's announcement in an X post that had a black and white photo of Trump in the Oval Office that referenced the 2013 movie "Captain Phillips," which dramatized the 2009 merchant boat hostage situation by Somali pirates. "I am the captain now," DHS wrote in the post. TPS is given to nationals of select countries who are unable to return home safely due to conditions such as famine, war and environmental disasters. Immigrants who have TPS designation can not be removed by DHS and are given an Eligible for an Employment Authorization Document that allows them to legally work in the U.S. Somalis in Minnesota say ICE agents already targeting their community Somalia has been under a TPS designation since 1991, when civil war broke out and displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians. It has been renewed several times over the last 34 years as the conflict has grown. The State Department currently has a travel advisory -- in effect since May of last year -- warning people not to travel to Somalia due to "crime, terrorism, civil unrest, health, kidnapping, piracy" and other issues. Noem did not go into further detail about her description of improved conditions in Somalia, which appear to contradict the State Department's advisory. In this Oct. 8, 2025, file photo, President Donald Trump listens to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speak during a roundtable in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, D.C. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images, FILE Immigration attorneys who spoke with ABC News Tuesday criticized DHS's claim that conditions in Somalia have improved. "That statement is really belied and contradicted by the facts on the ground," Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told ABC News. "The State Department's own website warns that the country continues to see terrorism, violent crime and civil unrest." Chen said that conditions in Somalia have worsened, pointing to the escalating conflict between the federal government and the terrorist group Al-Shabaab. In this Nov. 11, 2025, file photo, Somali soldiers are shown near armored personnel carriers, in Sabiid Canole, Somalia. Jackson Njehia/AP, FILE "To suggest that it is safe for Somali nationals to be forced to return to a country with an active military conflict doesn't make sense from a safety consideration, or from the statutory requirements for TPS established by Congress," Chen said. Chen said that while some individuals may qualify for legal status through family members or other forms of relief, many others will be left without a lawful path to remain in the country. David Wilson, an immigration attorney in Minnesota who represents Somali TPS holders, told ABC News that some clients who have lived in the U.S. since the late 1990s now face potential deportation. "There are also people who arrived more recently to escape the growing threat of Al-Shabaab who are now truly fearful," Wilson said. Wilson argued that the administration is "trying to sell a vision of a much different country than the rest of the world knows to be true." PHOTO: Protesters march through frigid conditions, with temperatures near 10 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 12 Celsius), in a neighborhood in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Dec. 20, 2025. Protesters march through frigid conditions, with temperatures near 10 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 12 Celsius), in a neighborhood in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Dec. 20, 2025, where many Somali, Latino and Hispanic immigrants live and work, during the "MN Love Our Immigrant Neighbors - ICE Out of MN!" rally calling for the removal of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement from Minnesota. Kerem Yucel/AFP via Getty Images, FILE As of 2024, there are nearly 260,000 Americans of Somali descent living in the U.S, according to the census. Of that population, more than 115,000 are foreign-born and more than 93,000 -- or more than 80% -- of the foreign-born population are naturalized U.S. citizens, according to the census data. Trump has repeatedly bashed the American Somali community, particularly the ones living in Minnesota, which has the largest share of Somali nationals in the country, according to the census. As of Tuesday, there are 2,471 Somali nationals currently in the U.S. under TPS, with 1,383 in the country with pending TPS applications, a source with knowledge of the data told ABC News. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has slammed Trump for his comments targeting Somalis. "We've got little children going to school today, who their president called them 'garbage,'" Walz said at an event last month. Trump has repeated his criticisms against the Somali community following reports of fraud in the state, allegedly perpetrated by Somali immigrants against Minnesota's social services system. Trump ramps up anti-immigrant rhetoric, embraces 's---hole countries' phrase The allegations are being investigated; Minnesota officials have disputed the allegations. The Trump administration has revoked and refused to renew TPS protections for several countries since he took office last year -- including for Venezuelan nationals. However, those decisions have been fought in court cases that have argued that DHS has made its moves in part by racial animus, citing the president and Noem's rhetoric. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Four migrants die in US immigration custody over first 10 days of 2026 By Ted Hesson

Trump administration increases migrant detentions, aims for more deportations DHS says death rate aligns with historic norms amid rising detentions WASHINGTON, Jan 12 (Reuters) - Four migrants died while in custody of U.S. immigration authorities over the first 10 days of 2026, according to government press releases, a loss of life that followed record detention deaths last year under President Donald Trump. The deaths included two migrants from Honduras, one from Cuba and another from Cambodia, and occurred from January 3-9, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here. Advertisement · Scroll to continue The Trump administration aims to ramp up deportations and has increased the number of migrants in detention. As of January 7, ICE statistics showed that the agency was detaining 69,000 people. The numbers were expected to rise following a massive ICE funding infusion passed by the U.S. Congress last year. At least 30 people died in ICE custody in 2025, the highest level in two decades, agency figures showed. Setareh Ghandehari, advocacy director at Detention Watch Network, called the high number of deaths "truly staggering" and urged the administration to shutter detention centers. U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said the rate of deaths had remained in step with historic norms as the detention population has climbed. Advertisement · Scroll to continue “As bed space has expanded, we have maintained (a) higher standard of care than most prisons that hold U.S. citizens — including providing access to proper medical care," McLaughlin said. The Cuban detainee, Geraldo Lunas Campos, 55, died on January 3 in Camp East Montana, a detention site opened by the Trump administration on the grounds of Fort Bliss in Texas. ICE said it was investigating the death of Lunas, adding that officials said he had become disruptive and placed him in isolation. Officials later found him in distress, and emergency medical technicians pronounced him dead, ICE said. The two Honduran men - Luis Gustavo Nunez Caceres, 42, and Luis Beltran Yanez–Cruz, 68 - died in area hospitals in Houston and Indio, California, on January 5 and 6, respectively, both following heart-related issues, ICE said. Parady La, a Cambodian man, 46, died on January 9 following severe drug withdrawal symptoms at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, ICE said. The administration began using that space last year, it said. The Trump administration has greatly reduced the number of migrants released from detention on humanitarian grounds, a move critics say has driven some to accept deportation. In addition to the in-custody deaths, an ICE officer fatally shot a Minnesota mother of three last week, an incident that sparked protests in Minneapolis and cities around the country. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Nationwide anti-ICE protests call for accountability after Renee Good's death

People took to the streets in cities across the country this weekend to protest the Trump administration's immigration enforcement tactics following the death of Renee Good in Minneapolis, a 37-year-old woman who was shot and killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer last week. At least 1,000 events across the U.S. were planned for Saturday and Sunday, according to Indivisible, a progressive grassroots coalition of activists helping coordinate the movement it calls "ICE Out For Good Weekend of Action." Leah Greenberg, a co-executive director of Indivisible, said people are coming together to "grieve, honor those we've lost, and demand accountability from a system that has operated with impunity for far too long." Sponsor Message National The latest updates on the Minneapolis ICE shooting "Renee Nicole Good was a wife, a mother of three, and a member of her community. She, and the dozens of other sons, daughters, friends, siblings, parents, and community members who have been killed by ICE, should be alive today," Greenberg said in a statement on Friday. "ICE's violence is not a statistic, it has names, families, and futures attached to it, and we refuse to look away or stay silent." Large crowds of demonstrators carried signs and shouted "ICE out now!" during protests across Minneapolis on Saturday. One of those protesters, Cameron Kritikos, told NPR that he is worried that the presence of more ICE agents in the city could lead to more violence or another death. "If more ICE officers are deployed to the streets, especially a place here where there's very clear public opposition to the terrorizing of our neighborhoods, I'm nervous that there's going to be more violence," the 31-year grocery store worker said. "I'm nervous that there are going to be more clashes with law enforcement officials, and at the end of the day I think that's not what anyone wants." Demonstrators in Minneapolis on Saturday, Jan. 10, 2026. Demonstrators in Minneapolis on Saturday. Sergio Martínez-Beltrán/NPR The night before, hundreds of city and state police officers responded to a "noise protest" in downtown Minneapolis. An estimated 1,000 people gathered Friday night, according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara, and 29 people were arrested. National ICE shootings are a 'direct byproduct' of tactic shift, ex-ICE acting director says People demonstrated outside of hotels where ICE agents were believed to be staying. They chanted, played drums and banged pots. O'Hara said that a group of people split from the main protest and began damaging hotel windows. One police officer was injured from a chunk of ice that was hurled at officers, he added. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey condemned acts of violence but praised what he said were the "vast majority" of protesters who remained peaceful, during a morning news conference. Sponsor Message "To anyone who causes property damage or puts others in danger: you will be arrested. We are standing up to Donald Trump's chaos not with our own brand of chaos, but with care and unity," Frey wrote on social media. Commenting on the protests, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told NPR in a statement, "the First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly — not rioting, assault and destruction," adding, "DHS is taking measures to uphold the rule of law and protect public safety and our officers." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Sunday said the agency was sending "hundreds more" federal agents to Minneapolis Sunday and Monday to protect ICE agents. "If they [protesters] conduct violent activities against law enforcement, if they impede our operations, that's a crime, and we will hold them accountable to those consequences," Noem told Fox News. Good was killed the day after DHS launched a large-scale immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota set to deploy 2,000 immigration officers to the state. Young students march near Kenny Community School in Minneapolis a day after an ICE agent shot and killed a 37-year-old woman on Thursday, Jan. 8, 2026. The Picture Show Photos: Protests grow over the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis In Philadelphia, police estimated about 500 demonstrators "were cooperative and peaceful" at a march that began Saturday morning at City Hall, Philadelphia Police Department spokesperson Tanya Little told NPR in a statement. No arrests were made. In Portland, Ore., demonstrators rallied and lined the streets outside of a hospital on Saturday afternoon, where immigration enforcement agents bring detainees who are injured during an arrest, reported Oregon Public Broadcasting. A man and woman were shot and injured by U.S. Border Patrol agents on Thursday in the city. DHS said the shooting happened during a targeted vehicle stop and identified the driver as Luis David Nino-Moncada, and the passenger as Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras, both from Venezuela. As was the case in their assertion about Good's fatal shooting, Homeland Security officials claimed the federal agent acted in self-defense after Nino-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras "weaponized their vehicle." Activists participate in a protest prior to a march to the headquarters of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Sunday in Washington, D.C. Activists participate in a protest prior to a march to the headquarters of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Sunday in Washington, D.C. Alex Wong/Getty Images Protests also continued Sunday, including in Atlanta, Washington, D.C., and New York City. Sponsor Message Crowds gathered across the metro Atlanta area, including on the 17th Street bridge, where demonstrators held signs that read "Stop ICE Terror Now" and "ICE out 4 good," according to local media reports. In Washington, D.C., a day after protesters gathered in front of the White House on Saturday, demonstrators marched to ICE headquarters on Sunday. There were no arrests during the protests, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police Department told NPR on Sunday. A large crowd of demonstrators also marched in New York City on Sunday, according to PIX11. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

What is ICE and what powers do its agents have to use force?

The fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis has sparked protests and placed increased scrutiny on the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). ICE has made thousands of arrests since Trump returned to the White House, often in public settings. Those actions have increasingly brought its agents into communities across the country, leading to resistance from some local residents who oppose their operations. What is ICE and when was it formed? ICE is taking the lead in carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation initiative, which was a central promise of Donald Trump's election campaign. The US president has significantly expanded ICE, its budget and its mission since returning to the White House. The agency enforces immigration laws and conducts investigations into undocumented immigration. It also plays a role in removing undocumented immigrants from the US. ICE was formed as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, a response to the terror attacks on 11 September 2001. The legislation created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with ICE as one of its subsidiary agencies. What powers do ICE agents have to arrest people? ICE sees its mission as encompassing both public safety and national security. However, its powers are different than the average local police department in the US. Its agents have the power to stop, detain and arrest people they suspect of being in the US illegally. They can detain US citizens in limited circumstances, such as if a person interferes with an arrest, assaults an officer, or ICE suspect the person of being in the US illegally. Despite this, according to news organisation ProPublica, there were more than 170 incidents during the first nine months of Trump's presidency in which federal agents held US citizens against their will. These cases included Americans they had suspected of being undocumented immigrants. Getty Images A bullet hole is seen in the windshield of a vehicle involved in a shooting by an ICE agent during federal law enforcement operations on 7 January 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Two police officers stand in the foreground, out of focus.Getty Images An ICE officer shot Renee Good while she was driving a car What powers does ICE have to use force? ICE's use of force actions are governed by a combination of the US Constitution, US law and the Department of Homeland Security's own policy guidelines. Under the US constitution, law enforcement "can only use deadly force if the person poses a serious danger to them or other people, or the person has committed a violent crime", said Chris Slobogin, director of the criminal justice programme at Vanderbilt University Law School. But the US Supreme Court has historically granted broad leniency to officers making in-the-moment decisions without the benefit of hindsight. A DHS policy memo from 2023 states that federal officers "may use deadly force only when necessary" when they have "a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury" to themself or another person. Where does ICE operate? Typically, ICE operates inside the US, with some staffing abroad. Its sister agency, US Customs and Border Protection, technically patrols the US borders. But those roles have become increasingly blurred, as the Trump administration pulled agents from a range of federal law enforcement agencies to participate in immigration enforcement. Border Patrol officers increasingly operate within the US, taking part in raids with ICE. ICE and other agencies have deployed hundreds of officers to cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and now Minneapolis, in partnership with other federal law enforcement agencies. As many as 2,000 federal officers will deploy to Minneapolis as part of the latest operation, the Associated Press reported. What happens to people who are detained by ICE? The scale of Trump-era deportations have been significant. The administration said it had deported 605,000 people between 20 January and 10 December 2025. It also said 1.9 million immigrants had "voluntarily self-deported", following an aggressive public awareness campaign encouraging people to leave the country on their own to avoid arrest or detention. An immigrant who encounters ICE can face a variety of outcomes. Sometimes an individual is temporarily held, then released after questioning. In other circumstances, ICE will detain and transfer that person to a larger detention facility, of which there are several throughout the US. While many immigrants continue to fight for legal status while detained, if they are unsuccessful, they may ultimately be deported. About 65,000 people were in ICE detention as of 30 November 2025, according to data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse's immigration project, a compendium of government data from Syracuse University. Immigration lawyers have told the BBC that, once ICE detains an individual, it can sometimes take days for families or lawyers to find out where they are. Getty Images People demonstrate against ICE during a vigil honouring a woman who was shot and killed by an immigration officer earlier in the day in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on 7 January. Protesters carry signs that say "ICE OUT".Getty Images People demonstrate against ICE during a vigil honouring Renee Good, who was shot and killed by an immigration officer What are the criticisms of ICE and what opposition have its agents met? Many communities have pushed back when ICE and partner agencies like the Border Patrol carry out operations. It is now common for residents to film ICE agents as they carry out arrests. Some encounters between ICE and the public have become aggressive or violent. During ICE operations in Chicago, Illinois, a collective of media organisations sued the Border Patrol. They alleged agents used improper force against journalists, religious leaders and protesters. A federal judge sided with the group, before an appeals court overturned the decision. The Minneapolis shooting is not the first time an individual has been injured by gunfire during an immigration enforcement operation. There were two incidents in Los Angeles in October in which agents shot at drivers, the Los Angeles Times reported. DHS said in both instances that the drivers had threatened the officers with their vehicles. ICE officers, and other immigration agents, have been criticised for wearing masks while carrying out their operations. DHS officials have defended the practice, saying it protects agents from doxing or harassment. Where do Americans stand on ICE and deportations? Americans have a complicated view of Trump's immigration enforcement plans, polling suggests. A little more than half believe some level of deportation is necessary, an October 2025 survey from the non-partisan Pew Research Center suggested. That's roughly the same number as Pew found the previous March. But the same poll suggests that Americans have concerns about Trump's methods. It found that a majority of US adults - 53% - believed the Trump administration was doing "too much" to deport undocumented immigrants. About 36% backed the approach. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Hundreds of judges reject Trump’s mandatory detention policy, with no end in sight

Federal judges are increasingly exasperated by the Trump administration’s effort to lock up nearly everyone facing deportation proceedings — a draconian expansion of decades-old policies that hundreds of courts have rejected as illegal or unconstitutional. More than 300 federal judges, including appointees of every president since Ronald Reagan, have now rebuffed the administration’s six-month-old effort to expand its so-called “mandatory detention” policy, according to a POLITICO analysis of court dockets from across the country. Those judges have ordered immigrants’ release or the opportunity for bond hearings in more than 1,600 cases. 00:01 02:00 Read More And dozens more federal judges have ordered the administration to release immigrants yanked off the street without due process or held for prolonged periods even though no country has agreed to accept them. The legal rejections are so frequent that one judge compared the Trump administration’s effort to Sisyphus rolling a rock uphill. Others have become so familiar with the cases that they’ve begun issuing terse, carbon-copy rulings to dispense with the deluge. Immigrant advocates say the administration’s win-loss record is beside the point; the goal appears to be making the process so onerous that many choose to give up rather than face weeks or months of detention. Despite the overwhelming legal consensus, there has been no successful nationwide block on the policy. That’s partly because most of the cases are filed on an emergency basis by individuals in the hours after they’re arrested — with little time to assemble large groups that could mount a broad challenge. In recent weeks, the judges’ conclusions have become increasingly urgent, describing shocking mistreatment and inhumanity as thousands of people — the majority not charged with any crime — are abruptly ripped from family members and locked up in squalid detention centers, even if they have lived in the country for decades. Many have been arrested while attending required immigration court proceedings or check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that they had attended for decades. “This district has been flooded with petitions for relief with similar stories — families ripped apart, and people who pose no danger or risk of fleeing imprisoned with no end in sight, flown to far off detention centers for reasons that the government lawyers who appear in court themselves can’t explain,” U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian wrote in a Dec. 23 opinion. “And that doesn’t account for the countless people picked up off the streets who don’t have lawyers and who can’t effectively seek relief.” “No one disputes that the government may, consistent with the law’s requirements, pursue the removal of people who are in this country unlawfully. But the way we treat others matters,” the New York-based Biden appointee continued. Subramanian’s ruling is one of hundreds issued by judges since July 8, when ICE revised its policies to conclude that virtually anyone in the country unlawfully was subject to detention — without the possibility of release on bond — while awaiting deportation proceedings. That decision reversed 30 years of practice by federal immigration authorities, who prioritized detention only for people deemed to be dangerous or likely to flee. In recent weeks, the legal challenges have surged, with more than 100 new lawsuits filed daily, a figure that has steadily increased. Courts overwhelmingly reject the policy A POLITICO review of thousands of federal dockets reveals the starkly lopsided results for the Trump administration: While 308 judges have ruled against the administration’s mass detention policy — ordering release or bond hearings in more than 1,600 cases — just 14 judges, including 11 appointed by President Donald Trump himself, have sided with the administration’s position. Even Trump’s appointees have rejected the administration’s view; 33 have ruled against its position on mass detention. The rejections have come predominantly from judges appointed by Joe Biden (103), Barack Obama (97) and Bill Clinton (27). In addition to the 33 Trump-appointed judges, the list includes 48 appointed by Presidents George. W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. And the numbers are likely to continue surging until federal appeals courts — or perhaps the Supreme Court — settle the matter conclusively, at least in large swathes of the country. The administration has appealed dozens of its defeats, but appellate courts are unlikely to resolve the matter for months, even on expedited timelines. The Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently signaled that it opposed the administration’s view on mandatory detention, but the ruling was primarily about the administration’s handling of a class action lawsuit dating to 2018. Department of Homeland Security officials have argued that they’re exercising maximal detention authority that other administrations simply chose not to employ. They say it’s an antidote to years of “catch-and-release” policies by the Biden administration, a practice in which immigrants crossing the border were briefly detained and then paroled into the country. “Regarding decisions from federal courts about mandatory detention, judicial activists … have been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court on these questions,” Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. “ICE has the law and the facts on its side, and it adheres to all court decisions until it ultimately gets them shot down by the highest court in the land.” What does the law require? At issue is a tension in the complex and tangled U.S. immigration laws that has vexed courts for decades. Federal law mandates detention for immigrants deemed to be “applicants for admission” to the U.S. who enter the country illegally; this has long been interpreted by courts and ICE to apply to people who only recently crossed the border. Watch: The Conversation Play Video20:23 The top 5 interview moments of 2025 | The Conversation Immigrants who have lived in the country for decades, on the other hand, have been subject to detention only if they are deemed a danger to society or a flight risk. And they have been afforded the right to bond hearings before immigration judges — executive branch officials tasked with adjudicating immigration cases, a system distinct from the federal judiciary. But ICE now contends that immigrants living in the country for years should still be considered “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention, even if no previous administration agreed. In October, the Board of Immigration Appeals — the executive branch body that oversees immigration judges — sided with the Trump administration’s view of mass detention, effectively requiring detention for immigrants targeted by the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. That decision has prompted a furious rush to federal courts. The flood of litigation that included a nationwide class action that appeared poised to resolve the matter. But ambiguities in that ruling — issued by U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes, a Biden appointee based in California — led the Trump administration to continue attempting to lock up most deportees without bond. Some Trump appointees side with him A handful of judges have recently sided with the administration’s view. U.S. District Judge Jodi Dishman, a Trump appointee from Oklahoma, said the vast majority of courts were going too far in concluding that immigrants living in the U.S. were no longer “applicants for admission.” And she questioned how judges were drawing the line. “Is two years of unadmitted residence long enough? Three? How far must an alien travel from the border? 50 miles? 100?” Dishman wondered. “If an alien has been in the interior a short time but resides far away from the border, can the distance make up for a short duration?” Even as she sided with the administration, Dishman acknowledged the consequences of her ruling: “The Court’s first duty is to the rule of law, and to misplace that duty would undermine our system of ordered liberty. The Court takes no solace in the human realities on the other end of its pen.” Another Trump appointee, Brian Buescher, recently ruled that even the nationwide class action granted by Sykes doesn’t prevent the administration from implementing its expanded detention policy. That class action, the Nebraska-based judge wrote, was beyond Sykes’ authority to issue. “The fact that a District Judge in California interpreted the law differently … does not somehow usurp or overrule all other judges in the United States Federal Courts, like this one, who see the issue differently,” Buescher ruled. A third Trump appointee, Louisiana’s Terry Doughty, recently flipped on the issue. Despite initially ruling against the Trump administration, Doughty said the Board of Immigration Appeals’ October decision was persuasive. Most Read Donald Trump holds an executive order and speaks with Linda McMahon. Trump’s next plan for the US education system: Lots and lots of rules Trump warns acting Venezuelan leader will ‘pay a big price’ if she doesn’t cooperate Trump’s Attack on Venezuela Could Change the World. Here’s How. 92-year-old judge handling Maduro case ‘doesn’t give a s--t what anyone thinks about him’ Trump on return trip to Washington predicts demise of Cuba, warns Colombia, threatens Greenland But even among Trump appointees, those rulings are an exception. Others, like Florida’s Kyle Dudek, Texas’ Jason Pulliam and Kentucky’s Rebecca Grady Jennings, have rejected ICE’s new policy. “The same wisdom that requires immigrants and noncitizens to follow the law equally requires the government to follow the law. That wasn’t done here,” wrote Damon Leichty, a Trump appointee based in Indiana, in a Dec. 30 ruling. Judges reject another detention policy Though the expansion of mandatory detention has flooded the courts with emergency litigation, it’s not the only aspect of the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy that has clogged court dockets. Another prominent culprit is the Trump administration’s decision to round up immigrants who have previously been ordered deported — sometimes years earlier — but whose home countries have refused to issue valid travel documents to effectuate their return. Though immigration officials are permitted to detain people in order to carry out their deportations, they can’t do so indefinitely. There’s no official legal limit, but the Supreme Court has blessed a six-month detention as “presumptively reasonable.” Yet judges across the country have found the Trump administration frequently violating these restrictions, holding people in detention without any country willing to accept them and no prospect for imminent deportation. This has led to a second surge of litigation and, in many cases, orders by judges requiring immigrants’ immediate release. U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik last month ordered the release of a Vietnamese woman who was arrested at an ICE check-in in August even though the federal government has been unable, for 26 years, to obtain travel documents to return her to her home country. Lasnik noted that the woman’s son died by suicide in November and without release, she would be unable to attend his funeral. Other judges have ordered the release of people who have resided in the U.S. while fleeing persecution in Iran, Russia and other countries that rarely accept U.S. deportees. Subramanian’s blistering ruling came in the case of Aissatou Diallo, a 52-year-old woman from Guinea who was ordered deported in 2012 but could not be sent to her home country because an immigration judge concluded she was likely to face persecution there. “Fast forward to November 25, 2025. Without any notice, Diallo was taken out of the security line at LaGuardia Airport, arrested, and shipped off to Louisiana to be detained there until the government can find a country to send her to,” Subramanian wrote. “At the hearing on her … petition on December 5, 2025, Diallo appeared in a courtroom sullen and scared, in prison garb, and shackled. None of this had to happen. All of it is illegal.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Despair for would-be US citizens as American dream blocked by Trump

The occasion should have been marked by the joy of reaching the destination of US citizenship following the long odyssey of immigration. Instead, the ceremony at Boston’s Faneuil Hall – renowned as a “cradle of liberty” for its role as a protest hub in the run-up to the American revolution – felt like a nightmarish end of the road for some aspirant new Americans who had turned up full of hope. Before proceedings at this month’s event got under way, staff from the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) asked arrivals expecting to swear the oath of allegiance that would finally confirm them as citizens to state their country of origin. Gray-and-red graphic illustration of a person being detained, overlaid on a bar chart. By the numbers: the latest ICE and CBP data on arrests, detentions and deportations in the US Read more Those from nations included on a travel ban list announced by Donald Trump last summer were then excluded from taking part, despite having completed the years-long vetting process. Among the disappointed was a Haitian nursing assistant in her 50s who had lived in the US for nearly 25 years – denied what immigration specialists say is her legal right by a sudden policy change introduced by the Trump administration on “security” grounds. The woman declined an interview request. But Gail Breslow, executive director of Boston-based Project Citizenship – which had helped guide her citizenship application – said she was left devastated and distraught. “Our client hadn’t received USCIS’s written notification on time and turned up expecting to become a citizen,” Breslow said. “She told us she was not alone in this and the same thing happened to others. “The image of officers going down a line and asking people where they were born, and based on the answer that they gave, pulling them out of line and sending them home is gut-wrenching. “We had another client there the same day from Honduras who was allowed to take part and sent us pictures of his naturalization. People are holding little flags and it’s a image of pride and joy as people are surrounded by family members – the contrast between that and people being plucked out of line based on what country they’re from is the most un-American image I can conjure.” The scene has been replicated in venues elsewhere in response to a USCIS memorandum sent out on 5 December instructing that immigration proceedings be paused for the nationals of 19 countries on Trump’s ban list. The memo followed the shooting on 26 November of two national guard troops in Washington DC, allegedly by an Afghan national, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who had been granted asylum earlier this year by the Trump administration. “In light of identified concerns and the threat to the American people, USCIS has determined that a comprehensive re-review, potential interview, and re-interview of all aliens from high-risk countries of concern who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021 is necessary,” read the memo, which cites the shooting of the national guards as a justification for the review. The memo prompted a flood of emails to applicants awaiting naturalization informing them that the ceremonies had been canceled. “This is to advise you that, due to unforeseen circumstances, we have had to cancel the previously scheduled Oath Ceremony on Wednesday, December 03,2025 at 12:30PM for the above applicant,” one typical email seen by the Guardian read. “We regret any inconvenience this may cause.” Advocacy groups report oath ceremonies being called off in Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Houston, St Louis, Omaha and elsewhere. “We have seen these cases now in over 16 cities, affecting nationalities that include Iranians, Haitian, Sudanese, Yemen, Venezuelan, Afghan, Sierra Leonean, Guinean, Libyan, just to name quickly some of the countries [proscribed],” said Greg Chen, senior director for government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. closeup of a hand holding a passport in a pocket ‘It’s sad we have to do this’: the US citizens carrying passports out of fear Read more Prohibitions also apply to green-card applicants and those applying for naturalization but who have not yet reached the stage of taking the oath of allegiance. “We’re talking about [the cancellation of] three types of things – green-card interviews, naturalization interviews and then … an oath ceremony where it’s kind of finalized,” said Chen. Most of those affected refuse to speak to the media, fearing that publicity could make them targets for reprisals or raids carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents enforcing Trump’s immigration agenda, which has been marked by mass deportations of undocumented people. However, a Libyan doctor – emailing the Guardian anonymously at the request of his lawyer – said his green-card application had been halted despite having worked in the US for 10 years after entering on an O-1/EB-1 (extraordinary ability) visa. “I never imagined that in the United States I would be targeted because of my nationality and religious background, particularly by the authorities,” wrote the doctor, whose medical work is focused on developing AI diagnostic and treatment tools for lung cancer. “I invested years of relentless effort in this journey … I pursued the American dream in good faith, believing in this country as a land of opportunity. skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to This Week in Trumpland Free newsletter A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration Enter your email address Marketing preferences Get updates about our journalism and ways to support and enjoy our work. Sign up Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion “Now, as I reach the final stages of my permanent residency process, an expensive and lengthy process, my future appears jeopardized solely because of my country of origin. I can’t describe to you the uncertainty, fear, disappointment and confusion I feel right now.” Such feelings are commonplace among groups suddenly fearing their path to citizenship is shutting. “We’ve had clients in tears asking us, what did they do wrong,” said Breslow of Project Citizenship, which has seen 21 clients receive oath ceremony cancellations and more than 200 being paused at an earlier stage. “What did they do to deserve this? People are very distraught.” Emotions are running particularly high among Afghans, nearly 200,000 of whom arrived in the US under the Biden administration’s Operation Allies Welcome program that followed the 2021 military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Many now feel singled out and betrayed after the national guard shootings, according to advocates. “We feel guilt and shame that that guy was part of our community,” said Fatima Saidi, director of We Are All America, a refugee and immigrants group. “But he was also a part of American militarism. He joined the US army when he was 15 and was trained.” In fact, Lakanwal was part of an Afghan unit that operated under CIA direction. “We also feel guilty for other communities because policies that are targeting Afghans are also affecting them,” she added. “But the other thing is just hopelessness and disappointment, especially among the Afghans who came here as allies. Most of them feel they have done so much for America, the veterans and the state department.” Nicole Melaku, executive director of the National Partnership for New Americans, said the collective demonizing of legal residents and citizenship applicants had ominous portents. “The strategy of the administration began with an assault on undocumented immigrants, and now he [Trump] is going after those with legal status and trying to move them into his deportation pipeline through administrative processes,” she said. “Everything here feels like part of a larger, ominous agenda to have exclusion, going back to times where we had the Chinese Exclusion Act or other operations in the 1940s like sending people back to Mexico.” Her warning was given added weight by guidance issued last week to USCIS field offices that signalled a forthcoming assault on the citizenship of Americans already naturalized. side by side photos of man holding two passports and woman smiling with man as she holds up folder of papers ‘I want that escape route’: Americans seek dual citizenships under Trump Read more The new guidance instructed offices to “supply Office of Immigration Litigation with 100-200 denaturalization cases per month” during the 2026 fiscal year, the New York Times reported, targets that would amount to a massive escalation of denaturalization cases. By comparison, only 120 were filed from 2017 to 2025. Federal law mandates that citizenship can only be withdrawn if holders committed fraud while applying. But a justice department memo sent to its civil division last June ordered denaturalization cases to be prioritized and appeared to lay down broader parameters. “It says they’re going to prioritize denaturalization cases against people who furthered criminal gangs, people who committed felonies that were not disclosed, and people who engaged in fraud against private individuals,” an immigration policy expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, said. “Those categories don’t require criminal convictions. “Only certain cases can be denaturalized under the law, although this administration is trying to stretch the parameters of what that means. “People who have had their naturalization interviews and ceremonies canceled … and then also stripping citizenship from already naturalized Americans – they’re like two halves of the same coin to make more of our community members subject to detention and deportation.”