Case: J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
8:19-cv-01944 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Filed Date: July 1, 2019
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenges the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 2019 policy memorandum that instructed asylum officers to reassess whether applicants previously determined to be unaccompanied alien children (UACs) still met that definition at the time of application and, if not, to decline jurisdiction.
On July 1, 2019, four unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the United States filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Plaintiffs alleged that the policy retroactively stripped them of protections under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and created a filing deadline that did not exist at the time they submitted their claims, in violation of the APA and the Fifth Amendment. Represented by Goodwin Procter LLP, Kids in Need of Defense, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, and Public Counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. On the day of filing, plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order. On August 2, 2019, the court, Judge George J. Hazel, granted the TRO, which was later converted to a preliminary injunction. 409 F.Supp.3d 367.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a defendant. The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. 2020 WL 2932922.
On December 21, 2020, the court certified a class of individuals who had been designated UACs and filed asylum applications prior to the effective date of any lawful new policy, but whose applications remained pending. 228 F.R.D. 33. The court also granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend the preliminary injunction. The order enjoined USCIS from applying the 2019 policy to decline jurisdiction over class members’ asylum applications, barred the agency from deferring to EOIR determinations, and restricted ICE from seeking control of class members’ asylum claims during removal proceedings.
The parties proceeded through further discovery and motion practice, including filing an amended complaint. The government appealed the class certification order to the Fourth Circuit (No. 21-1187), but voluntarily dismissed that appeal in November 2024 following settlement. 2024 Wl 5515354.
In January 2022, the parties requested referral to mediation, which ultimately resulted in a joint motion for class-wide settlement approval filed in July 2024. On November 29, 2024, the court approved the settlement, dissolved the preliminary injunction, and entered final judgment. Under the agreement, USCIS rescinded the 2019 Redetermination Memo, reaffirmed initial jurisdiction over covered UAC asylum applications, and agreed not to execute removal orders until those applications were adjudicated. On December 23, 2024, plaintiffs moved for attorneys’ fees. (These were eventually granted, in July 2025. 2025 WL 1940353. The court found over $900,000 fees justified because the government’s implementation of the 2019 policy failed to provide the required notice and comment period, and because it was inappropriately applied retroactively.)
Trump Administration Violates Settlement Agreement
Following the start of a new administration in April 2025, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the settlement. They alleged that ICE had removed a class member on March 15, 2025, under a presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The class member, Cristian (a pseudonym), is a Venezuelan youth with a pending USCIS asylum application. On April 23, the court, now Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher, granted the enforcement motion. 779 F.Supp.3d 570. The court found that Cristian fell within the class definition and that the government’s removal of him prior to asylum adjudication violated Section III.I of the agreement. The court ordered ICE to “facilitate” Cristian’s return and enjoined the removal of any class members with pending asylum applications.
On May 4, 2025, the government moved to vacate the enforcement order, arguing that Cristian’s asylum claim was barred due to his designation as a member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) and his prior felony conviction. USCIS had issued an “Indicative Asylum Decision” concluding that Cristian’s application would be denied. The court denied the motion to vacate but stayed the return order for two days to allow for appeal.
On May 8, the Fourth Circuit (No. 25-1519) granted an administrative stay of the return provision through May 15. On May 19, the court denied a broader stay in a split decision. Judge Benjamin, joined by Judge Gregory, upheld the district court’s enforcement order. 2025 WL 1431263. Judge Gregory also issued a concurrence suggesting that the underlying AEA proclamation was “plainly invalid.” Judge Richardson dissented, arguing that AEA removals fell outside the scope of the settlement and that “court-commanded negotiation with a foreign state” exceeded judicial authority.
The government will also sought an abeyance of appellate proceedings pending an indicative ruling from the district court. Though the government maintained that the court order was unlawful, because it has complied with the order, the injunction should be dissolved making the case moot. (The Fourth Circuit granted this motion on October 9, 2025.).
Back in the district court, the court ordered the government to file sworn status reports on steps taken to return Cristian. Because the government’s filings were vague and unresponsive, the court ordered expedited discovery. On June 5, 2025, the court directed the government to answer interrogatories, produce documents, and submit to two depositions. The court also required weekly sworn updates from knowledgeable officials.
The following month, the court issued a letter order noting that a UN human rights report—cited in parallel litigation in J.G.G. v. Trump—contained statements from the Salvadoran government disclaiming custody responsibility for deported Venezuelans, suggesting that the U.S. retained control. The court directed the government to explain why diplomatic negotiations were necessary to comply with the return order.
On August 14, 2025, the plaintiffs asked the court to find probable cause to hold defendants in contempt for intentionally violating the court ordered Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs alleged that the government had failed to adequately update the court on Cristian’s whereabouts and had arranged for his release to Venezuela rather than return to the U.S.
The government filed its response on September 11, 2025. The government claimed that they could not simply request that El Salvador return Cristian to U.S. custody because he was under their sovereign authority and this was a matter of complex diplomatic relations traditionally carried out by the Secretary of State. Thus, the fact that the government facilitated talks between El Salvador and the Maduro Regime of Venezuela, with the agreement that the individual would be able to come back to the U.S. is sufficient to comply with the court's order. Additionally, the government claimed that it was not able to fully disclose information within status reports because of state secrets privileges.
On October 2, 2025, the plaintiffs notified the court that the government had removed six “potential” J.O.P. class members in violation of the settlement agreement. Three individuals were removed three months ago, but the government has not specified when the other removals occurred. The plaintiffs requested additional information from the government about these six individuals. Thus, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement on a class-wide basis to prevent further unlawful removal of class members awaiting an asylum adjudication by USCIS. The court denied this motion without prejudice for being premature, given that the parties had not completed the process agreed to within their settlement agreement. The court noted however its concern about the number of instances of apparent non-compliance.
Plaintiffs also filed a reply to the government's claims regarding the contempt motion. The plaintiffs contend that the court order clearly and narrowly required the government to make a request to the El Salvador government to facilitate the release of Cristian to U.S. custody. Based on the record available and the government's omissions, plaintiffs claimed that the request was not made. Additionally, the plaintiffs take issue with the fact that government's failure to file timely status reports was a strategic choice to conceal real time events during the prisoner exchange. Especially given that the government conceded that it was partly out of fear of public scrutiny affecting the deal.
On November 14, 2025, Judge Gallagher denied all three motions before the court: plaintiffs’ probable cause for contempt and prompt notice motions as well as defendants' motion to vacate. 2025 WL 2340078.
On the probable cause motion, the court acknowledged its frustration with the lack of good faith government efforts to comply with the court’s orders. For the order to facilitate Cristian’s return, the court declined to impose criminal contempt because the State Department was not listed as a party in this suit who would have had the power to communicate with other governments to facilitate Cristian’s return. Thus, the court reasoned, it could not hold a government agency or official without the authority to convey specific communications directly to El Salvador in contempt. The court also declined to impose criminal contempt on the bases of the woefully deficient and late status reports because criminal contempt is a drastic sanction not fit for minor offenses.
The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for prompt notice as moot given that Cristian is no longer in U.S. custody, thus any return to the U.S. must be made through negotiations with the government or through Court orders. Lastly, the court denied defendants’ motion to vacate an order requiring defendants to facilitate Cristian’s return to the United States because they failed to show they are suffering any ongoing burden or obligation. Should Cristian seek to return to the U.S., the court order continues to oblige the government to facilitate his return.
As of November 2025, the preliminary injunction remains in effect and discovery on enforcement is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Nora Baty (10/10/2019)
Bogyung Lim (1/28/2020)
Rachel Kreager (4/7/2021)
Scott Shuchart (5/2/2025)
Clearinghouse (5/20/2025)
Brian Chen (8/6/2025)
Zainab Mustafa (10/1/2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15867241/parties/jop-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Blais, Elaine Herrmann (Massachusetts)
Attorney, Brandon Davis
Attorney, Yamileth G. (Maryland)
Bedestani, Erhan Bedestani (Maryland)
Boynton, Brian (Maryland)
Blais, Elaine Herrmann (Massachusetts)
Burgess, Brian (District of Columbia)
DeJong, Kevin J. (Massachusetts)
Esq., Brian Timothy (Maryland)
Frederick, Sarah (Massachusetts)
Jackson, Kristen M. (California)
Mendez, Michelle N. (Maryland)
Perez-Sparks, Sierra (Maryland)
Ross, Mary Tanagho (California)
Shaw, Stephen (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15867241/jop-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Last updated Nov. 26, 2025, 2:09 p.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Reversing Course on Existing Litigation
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 1, 2019
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Individuals who (1) were determined to be an Unaccompanied Alien Child; and (2) who filed an asylum application that was pending with the USCIS; and (3) on the date they filed their asylum application with USCIS, were 18 years of age or older, or had a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody; and (4) for whom USCIS has not adjudicated the individual’s asylum application on the merit
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of Maryland 8:19-cv-01944
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 21-01187
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 25-01519
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 25-02098
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
National / Universal injunction
Issues
General/Misc.:
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/17250/ (last updated 10/1/2025).