N. Kumar v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-02055 (W.D. Wash)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the threatened third country removal of an Indian asylum seeker to Uganda. Respondents seek to remove Mr. Kumar without any opportunity to apply for humanitarian-based protection from removal to that country. The petition sought at least 10 days advanced notice in writing of any planned removal to a third country; a reasonable fear interview; and if a reasonable fear interview results in denial, 15 days to file a motion to reopen with the immigration court.
On November 17, 2025, the court granted the petition, enjoining the government from removing Mr. Kumar to any country not designated on his order of removal without procedural protections. Specifically, the court ordered the government to provide Mr. Kumar a reasonable fear interview, and if a reasonable fear of removal to Uganda is established, to reopen Mr. Kumar’s removal proceedings to allow him to present a full claim for relief. The court also ordered that the government must provide Mr. Kumar with written notice of removal to any other country besides his country of origin at least ten days prior to that removal, and must ask whether he has a fear of removal to the third country and provide a reasonable fear interview.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Motion for Order to Show Cause
Order Granting Motion for Order to Show Cause
Federal Respondents’ Return Memorandum
Petitioner’s Traverse
Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas
Post-Rodriguez Vazquez Group Habeas Petitions:
Ortiz Martinez v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-1822 (W.D. Wash.)
Group habeas petition in which the petitioners—all of whom have resided in the United States for years, and in many cases, decades—challenge their mandatory detention simply because the government alleges they entered the United States without inspection. For more information, see Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock and Maldonado Bautista v. Noem.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Motion for Order to Show Cause
Memorandum in Support of Petition
Order Granting Motion for Order to Show Cause
Ex Parte Emergency Motion to Grant Habeas Petition or Issue TRO
Federal Respondents’ Preliminary Response to Petitioners’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order in Part
Federal Respondents’ Return
Response to Respondents’ Return
Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Garcia V. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-01980 (W.D. Wash.)
Second group habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention of three individuals and seeking enforcement of the Rodriguez Vazquez order on behalf of class members of the bond denial class.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion to Grant Petition Forthwith or Issue Order to Show Cause
Order Granting in Part Motion for Order to Show Cause and Expedited Briefing Schedule
Federal Respondents’ Return Memorandum
Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Del Valle Castillo v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-2054 (W.D. Wash.)
Third group habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention of six individuals and seeking enforcement of the Rodriguez Vazquez order finding the respondents’ bond denial policy unlawful. Four of the six petitioners first entered the U.S. as children before later being released with family or to sponsors. All six individuals had contested claims to Rodriguez Vazquez class membership, as they were apprehended at or shortly after entry to the US. Oral argument was heard on November 21, 2025, and the court granted the habeas petition on November 26, ordering that two petitioners be allowed to post their alternative bond amounts and four must be provided new bond hearings. One petitioner who was transferred to a different immigration facility out of district was ordered returned to the Northwest ICE Processing Center.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion to Issue Order to Show Cause
Order Granting in Part Motion to Show Cause and Expedited Briefing Schedule
Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Federal Respondents’ Response to Petitioners’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Federal Respondents’ Return
Order Granting in Part Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Order Extending Temporary Restraining Order
Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief
Order Converting Temporary Restraining Order to Preliminary Injunction
Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Cantero Garcia v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-2092 (W.D. Wash.)
Fourth group habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention of five individuals and seeking enforcement of the Rodriguez Vazquez order on behalf of class members of the bond denial class.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion to Issue Order to Show Cause
Order Granting in Part Ex Parte Motion for Order to Show Cause
Federal Respondents’ Return Memorandum
Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus
Order Granting in Part Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Corrales Castillo v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-2172 (W.D. Wash.)
Fifth group habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention of four individuals and seeking enforcement of the Rodriguez Vazquez order on behalf of class members of the bond denial class, as well as seeking to provide counsel with notice prior to the petitioners’ transfer to a different ICE facility.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion for Order to Show Cause
Order Granting Motion for Order to Show Cause
Federal Respondents’ Return Memorandum
Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Order Granting in Part Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Leon Figueroa v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-2228 (W.D. Wash.)
Sixth group habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention of four individuals and seeking enforcement of the Rodriguez Vazquez order on behalf of class members of the bond denial class, as well as seeking to provide counsel with notice prior to the petitioners’ transfer to a different ICE facility.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion for Order to Show Cause
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Order Granting in Part Temporary Relief
Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Order to Show Cause
Federal Respondents’ Return Memorandum
Petitioners’ Traverse
Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Hernandez Ramos v. Hermosillo, No. 2:25-cv-2273 (W.D. Wash.)
Seventh group habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention of six individuals and seeking enforcement of the Rodriguez Vazquez order on behalf of class members of the bond denial class, as well as seeking to provide counsel with notice prior to the petitioners’ transfer to a different ICE facility.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion for Order to Show Cause
Order to Show Cause
Federal Respondents’ Return Memorandum
Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Mendez Dominguez v. Hermosillo
Eighth group habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention of nine individuals and seeking enforcement of the Rodriguez Vazquez order on behalf of class members of the bond denial class, as well as seeking to provide counsel with notice prior to the petitioners’ transfer to a different ICE facility.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion for Order to Show Cause
Order Granting in Part Motion for Order to Show Cause
Federal Respondents’ Return Memorandum
Petitioners’ Traverse
Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Medina Ocampo v. Hermosillo, No. 2:25-cv- 2408 (W.D. Wash.)
Ninth group habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention of ten individuals and seeking enforcement of the Rodriguez Vazquez order on behalf of class members of the bond denial class, as well as seeking to provide counsel with notice prior to the petitioners’ transfer to a different ICE facility.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion for Order to Show Cause
Order Granting in Part Motion for Order to Show Cause
Federal Respondents’ Return Memorandum
Petitioners’ Traverse
Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Almonte Hernandez v. Hermosillo, No. 2:25-cv-2464 (W.D. Wash.)
Tenth group habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention of six individuals and seeking enforcement of the Rodriguez Vazquez order on behalf of class members of the bond denial class, as well as seeking to provide counsel with notice prior to the petitioners’ transfer to a different ICE facility.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Unopposed Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule Cause
Order Granting Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule
Cases challenging re-detention:
These cases challenge the re-detention of persons who ICE previously released and later re-detained without providing those persons notice or an opportunity to contest their re-detention before a judge. In some of these cases, the courts have ordered immediate release of petitioners while the litigation proceeds.
Bonilla Mejia v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-02196 (W.D. Wash.)
Habeas petition on behalf of an asylum seeker who was previously apprehended with his wife and children shortly after entering the US, then released. He and his family arrived minutes late for an individual immigration court hearing and were ordered removed in absentia, without a hearing on their fear-based claims. Despite Mr. Bonilla Mejia’s compliance with his release conditions, he was abruptly and unlawfully re-detained and informed he would be removed immediately.
On November 26, 2025, the district court granted Mr. Bonilla Mejia’s habeas petition and ordered his immediate release from detention subject to his most recent order of supervision. The court also enjoined defendants from re-detaining Mr. Bonilla Mejia while his removal proceedings are pending.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Order Granting Temporary Relief
Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Order Granting Motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order
Federal Respondents’ Return
Petitioner’s Traverse
Order Granting Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus
Tomas v Hermosillo
Group petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of five individuals, all of whom were apprehended shortly after entering the U.S. and then released for the purposes of continuing their removal proceedings, and all of whom had been complying with the terms of their release when they were unlawfully re-detained.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion to Issue Order to Show Cause
Federal Respondents’ Response to Motion
Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion
Order Granting Motion to Issue Order to Show Cause and Expedited Briefing Schedule
Federal Respondents’ Return
Petitioners’ Traverse
Report & Recommendation
Francois, et al., v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-2122 (W.D. Wash.)
Group petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of three asylum seekers, all of whom were apprehended shortly after entering the U.S. and then released for the purposes of continuing their removal proceedings, then unlawfully re-detained. On December 5, 2025, the court granted the habeas petition and ordered that all petitioners be immediately released from custody and may not be re-detained until an immigration court hearing is held, with adequate notice, to determine whether detention is appropriate.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion to Issue Order to Show Cause
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause
Federal Respondents’ Return
Petitioners’ Traverse and Response
Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Quiva Palacio v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-1983 (W.D. Wash.)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the unlawful re-detention of an asylum seeker who entered the U.S. in 2021 and was previously released on his own recognizance for the purpose of continuing his removal proceedings.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
Order for Service and Return
Federal Respondents’ Return Memorandum
Y.M.M. v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-2075 (W.D. Wash.)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the unlawful re-detention of an asylum seeker who entered the U.S. in 2023 and was previously apprehended and released to pursue her removal proceedings. On November 6, 2025, the court ordered her immediate release and ordered that she shall not be re-detained again without pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to be heard in front of an immigration judge.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion to Issue Order to Show Cause
Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Show Cause
Federal Respondents’ Return Memorandum
Petitioners’ Traverse
Order Granting Habeas Petition
Ramirez Tesara v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-01723 (W.D. Wash.)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the unlawful re-detention of an asylum seeker who entered the U.S. in 2024 and was previously detained and released on parole. On November 25, 2025, the court ordered the petitioner’s release from custoy and that he cannot be re-detained until after a hearing, with adequate notice, on any parole violations.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order
Order Extending Temporary Restraining Order
Federal Respondents’ Return Memorandum
Petitioner’s Traverse and Response
Federal Respondents’ Reply
Order Granting Habeas Petition
Kumar v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-01772 (W.D. Wash.)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the unlawful re-detention of an asylum seeker who entered the U.S. in 2024 and was previously detained and released on his own recognizance.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order
Return Memo and Motion to Dismiss
Petitioner’s Traverse and Response to Motion to Dismiss
Reply in Support of Return Memo and Motion to Dismiss
Lopez Reyes v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv-01868 (W.D. Wash.)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the unlawful re-detention of an asylum seeker who entered the U.S. in 2022 and was previously detained and released on his own recognizance. Though the court issued its report and recommendation on October 15 that the habeas petition be granted and that the petitioner be ordered released, on October 14, the petitioner was ordered removed at a hearing where he appeared pro se and waived appeal.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ex Parte Motion to Issue Order to Show Cause
Order Granting Motion for Order to Show Cause
Federal Respondents’ Habeas Return
Traverse and Response to Return
Report and Recommendation
Stipulated Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
Habeas petitions involving language access barriers:
Jesus Bento Cardozo, et al., v. Drew Bostock, et al., 2:25-cv-00871-TMC-BAT (W.D. Wash.)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a group of individuals who have all been detained for over six months at the Northwest ICE Processing Center pending removal proceedings, without ever receiving even an initial hearing in their native language. The petitioners have languished in detention for months simply because the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has failed to secure interpretation services for their removal proceedings. The Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids such arbitrary and prolonged detention, and the government has never justified the petitioners’ continued detention at a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The petitioners have requested that the court declare their detention unconstitutional and to order their release or a bond hearing. On September 8, 2025, the court granted the habeas petition for the one remaining petitioner who chose to continue fighting their case while the habeas petition was pending. The court ordered that this person must receive a bond hearing, and he was subsequently released on bond.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and Return
Petitioners’ Traverse and Response to Motion to Dismiss
Respondents’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Report & Recommendation
Petitioners’ Objections to Report & Recommendation
Response to Objections to Report & Recommendation
Order on Report & Recommendation
Abderrahim Belqasim v. Drew Bostock, et al., 2:25-cv-1282 (W.D. Wash.)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of an individual detained for ten months pending removal proceedings due to EOIR’s failure to secure an interpreter.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Motion to Dismiss
Traverse and Response to Motion to Dismiss
Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Report and Recommendation
Respondents’ Objection to Report and Recommendation
Petitioner’s Reponse to Respondents’ Objections
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation
Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez, v. Drew Bostock, et al., 3:25-cv-05240 (W.D. Wash.)
Certified class action lawsuit challenging the Tacoma Immigration Court’s policy of refusing to consider release on bond for persons who are charged with having entered the country without being admitted. Defendants subject class members to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), despite the fact that many have lived in the United States for years and even decades and § 1226(a), not § 1225(b), should apply in their cases. The lawsuit also challenges the prolonged delays that the named plaintiff and other noncitizens face when appealing an immigration judge’s decision denying release on bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The bond appeal process often takes six months or more, and provides no meaningful relief to those who wish to challenge an immigration judge's bond decision.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction on April 24, 2025, ordering defendants to provide a recorded bond hearing to the named plaintiff and enjoining defendants from denying bond based on detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). On May 2, 2025, the court granted class certification to a Bond Denial Class comprised of individuals detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center and a Bond Appeal Class of all detained noncitizens who have or will have a pending bond appeal before the BIA. On September 30, 2025, the Court granted the Bond Denial Class's motion for summary judgment and held that class members are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and are therefore entitled to consideration for release on bond. The Court also rejected the government's request to dismiss the claims of the Bond Appeal Class. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. In the interim, class counsel filed a motion for further relief under 8 U.S.C. § 2202 seeking weekly class lists, notice prior to class member transfers, and notice to all class members of their rights under the September 30th judgment, due to defendants’ defiance of the declaratory judgment. A hearing on the motion was held November 20, 2025. The court has also requested supplemental briefing on the impact of the class certification and summary judgment in Maldonado Bautista.
Complaint
Motion for Class Certification
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Unpublished BIA Decision in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Second Unpublished BIA Decision in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendants' Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendants' Response to Motion for Class Certification
Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification
Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
Order Granting Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Defendants' Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Unpublished BIA Decision filed in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Response to Motion to Dismiss
Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgement and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Motion for Further Relief Pursuant to 28 USC § 2202
Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Further Relief
Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Further Relief
Defendants’ Answer
D.V.D., et al., v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.)
Nationwide class action challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) policy of deporting noncitizens to countries the government never raised as possible countries of removal during their immigration proceedings, without any notice or the opportunity to contest removal due to a fear of persecution, torture, and even death if deported. The lawsuit also challenges a February 18, 2025, directive instructing DHS officers to review the cases of individuals previously released from immigration detention—including those who have complied with the terms of their release for years and even decades—for re-detention and removal to a third country.
At a hearing on March 28, 2025, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), stopping ICE from removing people with a final order to a third country unless they are provided written notice and an opportunity to apply for immigration relief prior to removal. On April 18, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and granted in part their motion for a preliminary injunction. The government appealed the preliminary injunction order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction while the appeal is pending. The First Circuit denied the motion to stay. Defendantsthen sought an emergency stay of the injunction to from Supreme Court, which granted the application and a subsequent government motion seeking clarification of the stay order.
In district court, Plaintiffs have filed motions for three additional TROs, on May 7, May 18, and May 20. The first successfully prevented the removal of a group of class members to Libya, none of whom were Libyan and none of whom had received notice or the opportunity to present fear-based claims. The second argued for the immediate return of a class member whom the government removed to Mexico without providing sufficient notice and the opportunity to apply for relief from removal to a third country, placing the class member in extreme danger. The government was eventually ordered to return the class member to the U.S. The third request for a TRO explained that Defendants violated the injunction by attempting to remove a group of class members to South Sudan and requested immediate return of the group. The district court found Defendants in violation of the preliminary injunction in all three instances and ordered remedies. However, the government returned to the Supreme Court with a motion to clarify whether the stay of injunctive relief obligated them to provide relief to the class members whom the government sought to remove to South Sudan. The Supreme Court granted the government’s motion, thus lifting the district court’s order as to the individuals the government sought to remove in South Sudan. After that order was stayed, the government removed the men to South Sudan.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Plaintiffs moved for an indicative ruling to dissolve the previously issued preliminary injunction and moved for summary judgment on their claims regarding due process prior to a third country removal. Defendants’ appeals of the preliminary injunction and related orders before the First Circuit have been consolidated, and briefing is ongoing.
On February 25, 2026, the district court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ main claims challenging DHS’ third-country removal policy. The court issued both declaratory relief and set aside DHS’ third-country removal policy, and temporarily stayed the decision. Defendants’ appealed and filed an emergency motion to stay the decision on March 5, 2026. Briefing on the stay motion was complete on March 10, 2026. On March 16, the First Circuit continued the temporary stay while it adjudicates the full stay motion. On March 16, the First Circuit continued the stay and set an expedited briefing schedule for the appeal. The appeal was argued on May 13, 2026, and a decision is expected imminently.
Complaint
Motion for Class Certification
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certification
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Stay of Administrative Action
Memorandum of Law in Support of Emergency Motion
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion
Temporary Restraining Order
Memorandum on Temporary Restraining Order
Defendants' Motion to Stay Temporary Restraining Order
First Circuit Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
First Circuit Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay
First Circuit Reply in Support of Motion for Stay
First Circuit Order Denying Motion for Stay
Memorandum and Order Granting Motion for Class Certification and Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Part
First Circuit Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
First Circuit Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay
First Circuit Reply in Support of Motion for Stay
First Circuit Order Denying Motion for Stay
First Circuit Defendants’ Opening Brief
Supreme Court Application for Stay of Injunction
Supreme Court Opposition to Application for Stay
Supreme Court Reply in Support of Application for Stay
Supreme Court Order Granting Stay
Supreme Court Motion to Clarify
Supreme Court Opposition to Motion to Clarify
Supreme Court Reply in Support of Motion to Clarify
Supreme Court Surreply in Support of Opposition to Motion to Clarify
Supreme Court Surreply Response in Support of Motion to Clarify
Supreme Court Order Granting Motion to Clarify
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Indicative Ruling
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Memorandum and Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Third Country Deportations and DVD Practice Alert
Template DVD Habeas Petition
State of Washington, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 2:25-cv-163 (W.D. Wash.)
Class action complaint challenging an Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump that purports to unilaterally alter the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees birthright citizenship. Individual plaintiffs represented by NWIRP are two expecting mothers who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents with due dates after the anticipated implementation date of President Trump’s Executive Order. By the terms of the order—though not by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment—their children will be considered without status in this country. They seek to represent a class of similarly situated parents and their children. These children, although born in the United States, will be deprived of U.S. citizenship under the Executive Order, which would directly harm the children themselves, their parents, and their families.
Plaintiffs are asking the Court to declare that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship to their soon-to-be-born children, and to enjoin the government from enforcing the order. On January 27, 2025, the court ordered NWIRP's case on behalf of individual plaintiffs be consolidated with the Washington State Attorney General's case on behalf of plaintiff states. On January 23, 2025, the court granted a nationwide temporary restraining order. Plaintiff states and individual plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary injunction, which were granted on February 6, 2025. The government appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit, and filed an emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction, which the Ninth Circuit denied. Defendants then filed an emergency motion for stay with the Supreme Court, which was consolidated with two other related cases challenging the Executive Order. The Supreme Court ultimately granted the emergency motion, limiting the availability of nationwide injunctions. The Court remanded to the lower court to implement its ruling and declined to address the constitutionality of the Executive Order. Back at the Ninth Circuit, after briefing on the appeal was completed, the appellate court issued an opinion on July 24, 2025, concluding that the Executive Order contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and affirming the nationwide injunction. The Ninth Circuit declined to exercise jurisdiction over the claims of the individual plaintiffs.
On June 27, 2025, following the Supreme Court’s decision in CASA Inc. v. Trump (in which the Court narrowed the availability of nationwide injunctions), individual plaintiffs in New Hampshire filed a new class action suit challenging the birthright Executive Order. On July 10, 2025, that district court certified a provisional class and issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Executive Order against members of the class. In the Ninth Circuit opinion issued in State of Washington v. Trump on July 24, the panel concluded that the claims of the individual plaintiffs represented by NWIRP are covered by the new New Hampshire class action, and therefore declined to exercise jurisdiction over them. The Executive Order remains inactive and birthright citizenship continues to apply to all individuals born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration statuses.
Complaint
Plaintiff States' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Temporary Restraining Order
Individual Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiff States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Individual Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
Ninth Circuit Government Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction
Ninth Circuit Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Stay
Ninth Circuit Government Reply in Support of Motion to Stay
Ninth Circuit Order Denying Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction
Ninth Circuit Government Opening Brief
Ninth Circuit Plaintiffs States’ Answering Brief
Ninth Circuit Individual Plaintiffs’ Answering Brief
Ninth Circuit Government Reply Brief
Ninth Circuit Opinion
Supreme Court Opinion
Serafin Rangel-Sembrano, v. Adams County Sheriff's Office, et al.,
2:25-cv-3 (E.D. Wash.)
Washington resident Serafin Rangel Sembrano filed a lawsuit against Adams County, the Adams County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Dale Wagner, and Deputy Evan Armstrong after they unlawfully detained Mr. Rangel during an incident in March 2023. The lawsuit asserts that county employees violated Mr. Rangel’s civil rights and state law in 2023 when Adams County Sheriff’s Office employees held him solely at the request of federal immigration officials to enforce civil immigration law. The lawsuit further alleges that Adams County has a policy and practice of violating Washington’s Keep Washington Working law, which was enacted in 2019 to safeguard against improper use of state and local law enforcement in civil immigration matters. Not only did Adams County Sheriff's Office continue to hold Mr. Rangel unlawfully after he was eligible for release, they also transported him over 70 miles from the Franklin County Jail to Ritzville, Washington, to turn him over to the custody of U.S. Border Patrol for suspected civil immigration violations, in spite of the fact the sheriff's office did not possess a judicial warrant.
Complaint
Answer
Wagafe, et al., v. Trump, et al., 2:17-cv-94 (W.D. Wash.)
Class action challenging the federal government’s Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program
(“CARRP”), an internal vetting program used in evaluating applications before USCIS to deny or indefinitely
delay thousands of people from becoming citizens or lawful permanent residents due to unspecified “national
security concerns.” Plaintiffs allege the program discriminates against immigrants who are Muslim or from
Muslim-majority countries on the basis of their religion and country of origin, and has unlawfully prevented
class members from having their applications for adjustment of status and naturalization adjudicated by USCIS.
After a lengthy discovery period, briefing at the district court was completed. On January 17, 2025, District Judge
Lauren King ruled on the cross-motions for summary judgment, granting in part plaintiffs' motion. Judge King's order affirmed
plaintiffs' claim that CARRP is arbitrary and capricious, notably because USCIS failed to (1) explain its basis for implementing this policy,
(2) indicate what data, evidence, or factors the agency considered before doing so, and (3) consider an important aspect of the
problem—i.e., USCIS’s statutory mandate to adjudicate naturalization applications within a reasonable time.
On June 25, 2026 at 1:30 PM in courtroom 15106 at the Western District of Washington, the district court will hold a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement.
Current status:
Complaint
Motion for Class
Certification
First Amended Complaint
Second Amended Complaint
Amended Motion for Class
Certification
Defendants’ Answer
Order Denying the Government’s Motion to Dismiss and Certifying a
Nationwide Class
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
Order Granting Motion to Direct Notice
Motion to Direct Notice of Settlement Agreement
Proposed Settlement Agreement
Wagafe Settlement Public Notice
Julian Sanchez Mora, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 3:24-cv-02430 (N.D. Cal.); 1:24-cv-03136 (D.D.C)
Class action complaint challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) nationwide practice of failing to timely respond to requests for immigration records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The complaint and motion for class certification were filed April 24, 2024, by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA), with NWIRP and the law firm of Van Der Hout LLP as co-counsel. FOIA gives individuals the right to access information that the federal government possesses about them within 20, or at most 30, business days of requesting the records. Yet CBP routinely takes at least 6 months—and in some cases more than a year—to process the requests. Absent these records, Plaintiffs, and others like them, are forced to delay their immigration cases and put off filing applications for benefits, as they endure prolonged delays while waiting for CBP to release records to which they are legally entitled. The case alleges that CBP’s delays violate the law and harm requestors.
On November 4, 2024, the Northern District of California judge granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the APA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and ordered the FOIA claims against CBP to be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs moved the D.C. District Court to reconsider the dismissal of the FOIA claim against Defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On June 18, 2025, the D.C. District Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and reinstated the FOIA claim against DHS.
Complaint
Motion for Class Certification
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider
Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration
Fayez Mansor, et al., v. USCIS, et al., 2:23-cv-347 (W.D. Wash.)
Class action complaint against USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security challenging the
government's failure to comply with the statute and provide immediate employment authorization
to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants while their applications for TPS are pending. The complaint was
filed March 9, 2023, by NWIRP and co-counsel at National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) and the law
firm of
Kurzban, Kurzban, Tetzeli & Pratt,
and seeks declaratory relief for all TPS applicants nationwide. Federal law requires that eligible TPS
applicants be
provided employment authorization documentation so they can obtain work to support themselves and their
families while
they wait for the agency to complete the lengthy adjudication process, which can take several months and, in
some cases,
even years. The lawsuit alleges that despite the statutory guarantee of such interim work authorization, USCIS
waits to
provide employment authorization documentation until after the TPS applications are approved.
On August 2, 2023, the Court denied the government's motion to dismiss the case, and on August 25, 2023, the
Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court has since issued a scheduling order
requiring the government to produce the administrative record and for the parties to address whether
extra-record discovery is necessary, which the parties submitted on December 22, 2023. The parties completed briefing
on cross-motions for summary judgment and now await an order from the court.
Complaint
Motion to Certify Class
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Order denying motion to dismiss
Order certifying class
Joint Status Report regarding extra-record
discovery
Felix Rubio Hernandez v. USCIS, et al., 2:22-cv-904 (W.D. Wash.)
Lawsuit against USCIS seeking relief under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) for the agency’s wrongful
denial of a U visa recipient’s adjustment of status application. The agency denied Mr. Rubio Hernandez’s
application on the basis that he failed to provide sufficient evidence pertaining to his criminal history, in
spite of the fact that the agency placed undue weight on arrests which resulted in dismissal or for which Mr.
Rubio Hernandez was found not guilty, and in spite of the fact that the agency committed legal error for
requiring police records no longer in existence. Even though he presented substantial evidence of positive
equities, the agency arbitrarily and capriciously denied Mr. Rubio Hernandez’s application, and the
Administrative Appeals Office denied his appeal.
On November 30, 2022, the district court denied the government's motion to dismiss the case, which the
government had asserted was required by the Supreme Court's decision in Patel v. Garland. On November 7, 2023,
the district court granted Mr. Rubio Hernandez's motion for a summary judgment, holding the Administrative
Appeals Office had unlawfully relied on multiple police reports in the record to deny his application. The
Court ordered the case to be remanded to the agency for reconsideration of Mr. Rubio Hernandez's application
based only on lawful factors. On January 5, 2024, the government filed a notice of appeal in the case.
Complaint
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Response to Motion to
Dismiss
Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to
Dismiss
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff's Response to Motion for
Reconsideration
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
Order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment
Nightingale, et al., v. USCIS, et al., 19-cv-03512-WHO (N.D. Cal.)
Class action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) challenging
the systematic delay by USCIS and ICE to respond to requests for
immigration files (often referred to as A-Files). Those files are
needed by immigrants to defend themselves in removal proceedings and
to move forward with their applications for immigration benefits. The
FOIA statute requires the government to respond within 20 days and yet
requestors are systematically forced to wait for several months before
the government responds.
On October 15, 2019, the district court certified two nationwide
classes challenging both USCIS's and ICE’s failure to timely submit
responses to FOIA requests for A-files. On December 17, 2020, the court ruled on summary judgment in
plaintiffs' favor, granting injunctive and declaratory relief and ordering defendants to make determinations
on all FOIA requests in USCIS's and ICE's backlogs within 60 days. Counsel for plaintiffs have issued
a practice advisory for practitioners, available below, and defendants continue to file compliance reports
with the court.
Complaint
Motion for Summary
Judgment
Order Granting Class Certification
Order Granting Summary Judgment
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs
First Compliance Report
Second Compliance Report
Third Compliance Report
Fourth Compliance Report
Fifth Compliance Report
Sixth Compliance Report
Seventh Compliance Report and Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction
Defendants' Reply in Support of Partial Stay of Injunction
Eighth Compliance
Report
Nightingale FOIA Practice Advisory - Updated February 2023
Rosario, et al., v. USCIS, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00813-JLR (W.D. Wash.),
appeal pending, NWIRP v. USCIS, No. 18-35806 (9th Cir.)
Challenges delays in adjudication of employment authorization
documents (EADs) for certain asylum applicants. On July 18, 2017, the
court certified a nationwide class of asylum applicants whose pending
applications for their initial EADs were not adjudicated within the
required 30-day regulatory timeframe and who did not receive interim
employment authorization. The court granted the government’s motion to
dismiss the claims of the named plaintiffs whose EAD applications were
subject to the 90-day regulatory timeframe, concluding that DHS’s
amended EAD regulations, which went into effect on January 17, 2017,
rendered those claims moot. The case has moved forward with the 30-day
nationwide class.
Following summary judgment briefing by both parties, the court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor on July 26, 2018.
The court ordered USCIS to follow the law and timely adjudicate initial EAD asylum applications. While the
government initially appealed that decision, it ultimately sought dismissal of the appeal, leaving the court's
order in place.
Complaint
Amended Complaint
Amended Motion for Class Certification
Order on Motion to
Dismiss and Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Class Certification
Second Order on Motion to Dismiss and Class
Certification
Plaintiffs' Motion
for Summary Judgment
Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment
Order
on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Practice Advisory and FAQ - Updated
March 2021
Padilla v. ICE, et al., 2:18-cv-928 (W.D. Wash.)
Class-action lawsuit challenging delays in process for asylum seekers.
The case seeks to shorten the length of time asylum seekers are
detained, since they are currently forced to wait in detention for
weeks and in many cases months for credible fear interviews and bond
hearings. In March 2019, the court granted nationwide class certification for both
the credible fear interview class and the bond hearing class, and in April 2019, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.
Complaint
filed
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
Second Amended Complaint
Amended Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendants' Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction
Order
Dismissing APA Claims and Partially Denying Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss
Order Granting Class
Certification
Order Granting
Preliminary Injunction
On April 16, 2019, the Attorney General issued a Board of
Immigration Appeals decision in Matter of M-S- which sought to
eliminate bond hearings altogether for class members. Plaintiffs filed
a third amended complaint and a motion to modify the existing
preliminary injunction, and defendants moved to vacate the preliminary
injunction. On July 2, Judge Pechman upheld the modification of the
preliminary injunction and denied defendants' motion. Defendants
appealed the court's order, and parties completed
briefing at the Ninth Circuit. Bond hearings without procedural
protections were restored to class members. In March 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated and
remanded in part the district court’s preliminary injunction, affirming plaintiffs’ due process right to bond
hearings and remanding for further findings with respect to the particular process due to plaintiffs.
On August 24, 2020, the government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued an order granting the government’s petition
on January 11, 2021, vacating the Ninth Circuit decision and remanding for further
consideration in light of Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam. On July 29, 2022, the Ninth
Circuit
remanded the case to the district court and vacated the preliminary injunction,
ending the protections previously afforded to class members from the injunctive relief.
Third Amended Complaint
Filed
Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction Modification
Defendants
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Preliminary
Injunction
Ninth Circuit Court Order
Order on Motions Regarding
Preliminary Injunction
Order on Class
Certification
Ninth Circuit Brief for
Appellants
Ninth Circuit Answering Brief
Ninth Circuit Reply
Brief
Ninth Circuit Opinion
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Brief in Opposition to
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Supreme Court Judgment on Petition
for Writ of Certiorari
On October 30, 2023, the district court granted preliminary approval to a settlement submitted by the
parties with respect to the Credible Fear Class.
Settlement Agreement
Class Notice (English)
Class Notice (Spanish)
On January 5th, 2024, a federal judge in Seattle issued an order approving a settlement agreement
providing protections for detained asylum seekers who face prolonged delays before being screened to apply
for persecution and torture.
Court
Order
Practice Alert
Martinez Baños, et al., v. Asher, et al., 2:16-cv-1454 (W.D. Wash.)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus and putative class action seeking the provision of individualized custody
redetermination (bond) hearings for individuals in withholding-only proceedings who are subject to prolonged
detention in the Western District of Washington. In 2017, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted,
requiring the federal government to provide bond hearings for class members after they had been detained for
six months. The Trump Administration appealed this ruling to the Ninth Circuit, where the case was
consolidated with a similar effort in California argued by the ACLU. Class members again prevailed at the
Ninth Circuit, and the government appealed to the Supreme Court. Oral arguments for the consolidated cases
(Esteban Aleman Gonzalez, et al., v. Merrick B. Garland, et al.) were heard on January 11, 2022.
On June 13, the Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings in Aleman Gonzalez and a related case. The Court
rejected the lower courts' rulings and held that the Immigration and Nationality Act permits the federal
government to lock up persons seeking protection from persecution or torture until the immigration proceedings
conclude, without providing them with a bond hearing. A second question was addressed by the Supreme Court:
whether the immigration statute prohibits federal courts from providing injunctive relief on behalf of
classes. The Court ruled that the statute prevents federal courts from granting the type of class-wide
injunctions that were granted to our clients in lower courts, thus making it more difficult for detained
immigrants to challenge government detention policies. The separate constitutional challenges will now go back
to the district court.
Current status:
Complaint
Amended Complaint Filed
Amended Motion for
Class Certification Filed
Plaintiffs'
Motion for
Summary Judgment
Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment
Report and
Recommendation
Order
Granting Class Certification and Adopting Report and Recommendation.
Ninth
Circuit Government's Opening Brief
Ninth Circuit Plantiffs' Answering Brief
Ninth Circuit Government's Reply Brief
Supreme Court
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Supreme Court Petitioners’
Brief
Supreme Court Brief of
Respondents
Supreme Court Petitioner’s
Reply
Supreme Court Slip
Opinion in Aleman Gonzalez
Supreme Court Slip
Opinion in Arteaga-Martinez
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, et al., v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.,
1:19-cv-03283-RDM (D.D.C.)
Suit in which NWIRP is one of three organizational plaintiffs against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) challenging new rules and policies DHS began
implementing in 2019 making it significantly more difficult and expensive for immigrants to apply for vital
immigration benefits, including naturalization, employment authorization, asylum, and others. DHS also raised
existing fees, and for some types of relief, raised fees by more than 500 percent. In September 2020, the
organizations moved for a preliminary injunction to postpone the effective date of the new fee rule. In 2021,
as part of Executive Order 14,012, “Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening
Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans,” the Biden administration informed the court they were
directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to undertake a review of the 2020 fee rule and the fee waiver
process. The case has been stayed pending new rulemaking.
Complaint
Amended
Complaint
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment
Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment
Memo in Support of
Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant’s
Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss
Second Amended
Complaint
Motion for Preliminary
Injunction
Order on Preliminary
Injunction
Plaintiffs’
Supplemental Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
