Migrant Survivors Sue ICE Over Policies Targeting U and T Visa Holders

(Migrants in the United States) Migrant survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking filed a federal lawsuit on October 14, 2025, alleging that recent ICE policies have led to the arrest, detention, and deportation of people with pending U and T visa applications, despite laws meant to protect them. The case, brought by individual survivors and advocacy groups including the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, Public Counsel, and the Immigrant Center for Women and Children, argues that current enforcement practices violate federal statutes, due process, and Congress’s intent to protect victims who cooperate with police. The lawsuit is pending and seeks an injunction to halt removals and detentions of applicants with pending protections.

At the center of the dispute are the U and T visas, which Congress created to help immigrant victims report crimes and work with law enforcement without fear of deportation. The U visa (Form I-918) covers victims of certain serious crimes who assist investigators or prosecutors. The T visa (Form I-914) protects survivors of severe human trafficking who are aiding authorities. Because of annual caps and long backlogs, many applicants wait years. In the past, immigration officers typically paused enforcement actions while these cases were pending. Plaintiffs say that practice has been abandoned.

According to the complaint, new directives first implemented under President Trump reversed long-standing guardrails by allowing agents to detain and remove applicants even when officers know about pending U or T cases. The filing describes a “detain and deport first, ask questions later” approach in 2025, including instances where officers allegedly failed to check if a person had a pending application. Advocates argue this shift pushes survivors back into danger and breaks trust with police, who rely on victims’ help to investigate trafficking networks and violent offenders.

The lawsuit cites harrowing examples from this year: a 64-year-old survivor with arthritis who was detained and deported despite a pending U visa, and a trafficked mother of twins who felt forced to self-deport after 14 years in the United States while her T case was pending. Plaintiffs say these are not isolated mistakes but the result of a systemic policy change that undercuts protections Congress built to keep migrant survivors safe and to support public safety.

Policy changes challenged

Plaintiffs challenge a set of ICE decisions they say break three legal pillars:

1. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) — includes strict confidentiality rules meant to shield survivors from enforcement actions tied to their reports of abuse or their immigration filings.
2. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — requires agencies to follow proper rulemaking when changing policies; the suit alleges ICE adopted a new nationwide practice without doing so and in a way that is contrary to law.
3. Due process — the complaint argues survivors who helped law enforcement were detained or deported while their applications for legal relief remained unresolved, violating fundamental fairness protections.

Advocates point to ICE’s January 30, 2025, Victim Policy (Policy 11005.4), which, on paper, requires officers to follow VAWA confidentiality rules. They argue current practices in the field don’t match that written policy. As a result, survivors with pending U and T visa applications are being treated as routine enforcement targets rather than as witnesses and victims Congress intended to protect.

A key element of the suit is the claim that ICE previously maintained a standard practice: officers would check for pending U or T filings and weigh those cases before making arrest or removal decisions. The plaintiffs assert the government has now abandoned that check, creating a chilling effect. Local police and prosecutors rely on survivors to report crimes and testify. If survivors fear immigration penalties even when they cooperate, law enforcement loses key partners and community safety suffers.

Human impact and community effects

The human impact is immediate and severe:

• Survivors risk being returned to the same people who abused or trafficked them, often in countries where those networks still hold power.
• Families are split when a parent with a pending application is detained or deported.
• Children—many of them U.S. citizens—lose caregivers and face sudden instability.
• Community groups report a drop in crime reporting as word spreads that even pending applicants might be detained.

For employers and service providers, the uncertainty complicates efforts to keep survivors engaged with criminal cases, counseling, or medical care. Prosecutors can struggle to proceed when a key witness is deported mid-case. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the alleged shift in ICE policies could ripple through local justice systems by weakening investigations into trafficking and domestic violence rings just as authorities try to dismantle them.

Legal relief sought

Plaintiffs ask the court for the following relief:

• A nationwide injunction prohibiting ICE and the Department of Homeland Security from detaining or deporting survivors with pending U or T visa applications.
• Restoration of prior practices that paused enforcement in these cases while applications were reviewed.

They argue Congress designed the U and T visa programs to serve both survivor safety and public safety, and that current practices break that balance.

Government response and oversight

The Department of Homeland Security has not filed its full response in court. In past statements, the agency has said it supports a victim-centered approach and complies with VAWA confidentiality. The case draws national attention, with coverage in major outlets and advocacy networks tracking the outcome closely.

While the lawsuit focuses on actions that plaintiffs link to policies under President Trump, it also places pressure on current leadership under President Biden to ensure field practices match stated policy.

“VAWA confidentiality protections are not technical footnotes; they’re core promises Congress made to victims,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers note. The pending case will test how far federal agencies must go to respect those promises in day-to-day enforcement.

Practical advice for survivors and allies

Attorneys and advocates recommend immediate, practical steps:

• Keep copies of all filings and receipts, including evidence that a U or T case is pending.
• Carry receipt notices and, where safe, inform local prosecutors or victim advocates if you face immigration enforcement while aiding a case.
• Seek prompt legal screening if you have contact with immigration officers.

Key resources and official links (preserved exactly as provided):

• Official information on U visas: USCIS U Nonimmigrant Status
• Primary forms: Form I-918 and Form I-914

Advocacy groups behind the lawsuit say they’re already hearing from migrant survivors who are skipping court dates or withdrawing from investigations because they fear arrest. That reaction, they argue, shows why Congress tied the visa programs to cooperation with law enforcement: if fear drives people underground, abusers and traffickers benefit.

Broader legal context and stakes

The filing references broader legal efforts—including summaries such as ICWC v. Noem—to underscore how VAWA confidentiality is supposed to work across agencies. Lawyers emphasize these protections are central to Congress’s promise to victims.

If the court issues the requested injunction, it could restore a pause on enforcement actions involving survivors with pending applications while those cases are reviewed. If denied, advocates warn deportations of cooperating witnesses may continue, with long-term fallout for families and public safety in the United States 🇺🇸.

As the case moves forward, survivors, police departments, and service providers are watching for guidance. For now:

• Attorneys recommend prompt legal screening for anyone with a pending application who has contact with immigration officers.
• Local prosecutors are urged to flag cooperating witnesses to federal counterparts.
• Plaintiffs maintain that a clear court order is needed to align field practice with law and to prevent further harm while the court reviews the claims.