Page 34 - The Indian EYE 121925
P. 34
IMMIGRATION DECEMBER 19, 2025 | The Indian Eye 34
Deferred Action for Special
Immigrant Juveniles Survives
Trump’s Attempts to Eliminate It
BY CYRUS D. MEHTA AND glected by a parent, and re- deferred action was granted rization based on a SIJ clas- the court granted a stay of
quires a finding by a juvenile for a period of four years. sification will generally re- the recission of SIJ deferred
KAITLYN BOX*
court judge that the child Noncitizens with SIJ classifi- tain it. As a justification for action. The court found that
cannot be reunified with his cation who had been granted this policy change, USCIS the plaintiffs are likely to suc-
n June 6, 2025, US- or her parent(s). This policy deferred action were also el- stated that: ceed on the merits of their
CIS issued a policy
“While Congress like-
Oalert stating that alert represented a marked igible to apply for work au- ly did not envision that SIJ claim that the policy reversal
was unlawful for several rea-
thorization for this period.
departure from previous
it would eliminate the au- USCIS policy, pursuant to Deferred action was petitioners would have to sons, including because the
tomatic consideration of which USCIS automatically necessary as a stop gap -solu- wait years before a visa be- government did not consider
deferred action for Special conducted deferred action tion due to the retrogression came available, Congress reliance interests or alterna-
Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs) determinations for juveniles in the employment-based also did not expressly permit tives to rescinding the policy.
who are not yet able to ap- with SIJ classification who fourth preference catego- deferred action and related The court also ruled that,
ply for adjustment of status could not yet adjust status ry, which prevented SIJ ap- employment authorization absent the stay, the plaintiffs
due to visa unavailability. because of immigrant visa plicants from filing I-485 for this population. Neither were likely to face irrepa-
SIJ is a classification that number unavailability. If applications. Without the an alien having an approved rable harm because of the
provides a pathway to law- USCIS determined that a benefit of deferred action, Petition for Amerasian, heightened risk of removal
ful permanent residence noncitizen with SIJ classi- SIJ applicants are subject Widow(er), or Special Immi- they would face without the
for minors who have been fication warranted a favor- to removal from the US grant (Form I-360) without protection of deferred ac-
abused, abandoned, or ne-
able exercise of discretion, even though they have an immediately available im- tion. The court deferred a
approved SIJ petitions migrant visa available nor a ruling on class certification
unless the priority date juvenile court determination and chose not to grant re-
becomes current. De- relating to the best interest lief in the form of a prelim-
ferred action allows of the SIJ are sufficiently inary injunction. The court
the executive branch to compelling reasons, support- followed the logic advanced
provide ameliorative re- ed by any existing statute or by the Supreme Court in
lief when there are gaps regulation, to continue to Department of Homeland
that would otherwise provide a deferred action Security v. Regents of the
render the noncitizen process for this immigrant University of California, 591
vulnerable to removal. category.” U.S. 1 (2020), a case involv-
Congress laid out a clear This policy change ing a challenge to DHS’ 2017
path to lawful perma- was quickly challenged by termination of the Deferred
nent residency for SIJS a group of youth and legal Action for Childhood Ar-
beneficiaries, but visa services organizations in the rivals (DACA) program.
backlogs cause years- U.S. District Court for the In Regents, the Court criti-
long delays before they Eastern District of New York cized the first Trump admin-
can apply for their green in A.C.R. et al. v. Noem et istration for not factoring
cards. al., No.1:25-cv-3962. In their in reliance interests when
Pursuant to the complaint, these organiza- terminating the DACA pro-
June 6, 2025 policy un- tions argued that USCIS’ gram. In reliance on the
der the Trump adminis- abrupt recission of deferred DACA program, DACA
m of tration, “USCIS will no action for noncitizens with recipients had enrolled in
CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC longer consider grant- SIJ classification was arbi- educational programs, start-
ing deferred action on
ed careers and businesses,
trary and capricious in vio-
a case-by case basis to lation of the Administrative purchased homes, and mar-
aliens classified as SIJs Procedure Act (APA) be- ried and had children in the
who are ineligible to cause USCIS failed to assert United States.
apply for adjustment of a reasonable explanation for In the majority opinion,
status solely due to un- its reversal of the prior poli- Chief Justice John Roberts
available immigrant vi- cy, causing irreparable harm noted consequences of the
sas”, though individuals to juveniles with SIJ classi- termination would also “ra-
who have already been fication who are now at risk diate outward” to impact
2 6th Floor granted deferred action for deportation. DACA recipients’ families,
and employment autho- On November 19, 2025, including their U.S. citizen
www.TheIndianEYE.com
