Judge issues 10-day administrative stay of rule cutting refugees' time to answer termination notices

A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday, Oct. 27, temporarily barred the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from implementing or enforcing a rule that gave refugees 10 days, instead of 30, to respond to a notice that the government intends to end their refugee status. U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick of the District of Massachusetts granted an administrative stay that runs for 10 days, through Nov. 6, according to the order in Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans v. Edlow, No. 1:26-cv-14817.¹

The order also covers notices of intent to terminate issued from Oct. 14 through the date of the order that demanded a response in fewer than 30 days. People who received those notices “shall not be required to respond” to them, and their status may not be ended for failing to do so, the order says.¹

What the order says

Kobick wrote that the stay preserves the status quo and avoids irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent while the judge assigned to the case considers their request for a stay under 5 U.S.C. 705, part of the Administrative Procedure Act. The assigned judge may change, extend or vacate it.¹

Reuters reported that Kobick said the pause was needed until a colleague could hear the case. Erez Reuveni, a Democracy Forward lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Reuters the order “provides meaningful protection for people who were already facing termination notices.” The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to Reuters' request for comment.²

The rule

The interim final rule, titled “Removing 30-Day Refugee Termination Notice,” was published Oct. 14 at 91 Fed. Reg. 65,077 and took effect on publication, without prior public comment.¹³ It amends 8 CFR 207.9 to shorten the response period from 30 days to 10, with 3 more days for mailed notices. Under the rule, a refugee who misses the deadline loses the chance to contest what the notice alleges, and DHS ends the person's status. The rule states that there is no appeal of a USCIS termination decision, and that a person whose status ends is processed for removal.³

DHS said it skipped notice and comment because following those procedures was “impracticable” and acting quickly “is in the best interest of the public,” citing national security and public safety concerns, and also invoked the foreign affairs exception. The rule says about 186,000 refugees who arrived in fiscal years 2015 through 2025 have not adjusted status, which DHS described as the most people the rule could affect. Comments are due 30 days after publication.³

The lawsuit

Six organizations, including HIAS, Refugee Council USA and the International Institute of New England, and four refugees filed suit Oct. 26 against USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and their agencies. Besides the rule, the complaint challenges a November 2025 USCIS memo that put on hold green card applications from refugees admitted between Jan. 20, 2021, and Feb. 20, 2025, and ordered their cases re-reviewed, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and due process.⁴ The plaintiffs are represented by the International Refugee Assistance Project, Democracy Forward and pro bono counsel. Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, said in a statement that the policies “violate fundamental due process protections.”⁵

What the records do not show

• The order does not decide whether the rule is lawful or address the green card hold and re-review policy.¹
• The order does not say how many termination notices were issued after Oct. 14 or whether any refugee's status has been ended under the rule.¹
• SignalData did not find a government court filing or public statement responding to the lawsuit as of Tuesday afternoon.
• The order does not name the assigned judge or set a hearing date.¹