(UNITED STATES) — Refugees who have not yet adjusted to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status may now need a defense strategy built around refugee adjustment of status under INA § 209, combined with rapid-response planning for Department of Homeland Security custody, re-screening, and possible placement in removal proceedings.
1) Overview of the new DHS policy on refugees
A new DHS policy memorandum, “Detention of Refugees Who Have Failed to Adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident Status,” issued February 18, 2026, directs federal immigration components to treat certain refugees who have passed the one-year mark since admission as subject to return to custody for renewed processing.
the memo frames the one-year point after admission as a trigger for re-screening. It contemplates detention while DHS conducts inspection and examination steps. It also contemplates enforcement action if a person does not present themselves voluntarily.
This matters because refugees are usually admitted with a statutory pathway to a green card through INA § 209. The memo’s operational posture emphasizes conditionality and re-vetting. That shift affects refugees, sponsors, resettlement agencies, advocates, and attorneys. It raises urgent questions about documentation, timing, custody risk, and how to protect eligibility to adjust.
Warning (time-sensitive): If you are a refugee past the one-year mark since admission and you have not adjusted, assume DHS may treat your case as enforcement-sensitive. Speak with counsel before any in-person reporting.
2) Official statements and framing
The directive was signed at the agency-leadership level by the USCIS Director and the Acting ICE Director. DHS and USCIS have framed the change as an integrity and security measure. Their stated goals include post-admission screening, fraud prevention, and public safety.
Operationally, the memo describes a posture in which DHS expects refugees who have not adjusted to report for further processing. If they do not, DHS contemplates affirmative steps to find and take the person into custody.
For refugees and counsel, the key translation is practical. A policy framed as “statutory compliance” can still result in arrest, detention, and accelerated decision-making about admissibility. Those consequences often unfold quickly and with limited time to gather records.
You can monitor official messaging through the USCIS Newsroom and broader policy releases on DHS statements. Those pages are typically where operational initiatives are described.
3) Key facts and policy details (mechanics and legal hooks)
What prior guidance was rescinded
The memo rescinds a 2010-era policy position that treated failure to apply for adjustment within one year as not, by itself, a basis for detention of a lawfully admitted refugee. Rescission matters because DHS is signaling a different view of custody authority and operational discretion.
Statutes DHS relies on
DHS cites INA § 209 (refugee adjustment) and INA § 235 (inspection of applicants for admission). Under INA § 209(a), a refugee “shall” be considered for adjustment after one year, if eligible. The agency is treating the one-year point as requiring renewed contact with DHS for examination.
A separate but related legal layer is inadmissibility under INA § 212(a). Adjustment under INA § 209 is not automatic. Applicants must still be admissible, or qualify for waivers where available.
What “return to custody” and “inspection/examination” can mean
In practice, “return to custody” can mean detention while DHS checks identity, biographic information, and any new derogatory indicators. “Inspection” and “examination” can include database checks, interviews, and document verification. It can also include review of past immigration history.
Operation PARRIS and “re-verification”
The memo ties to Operation PARRIS (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening). Based on DHS descriptions, re-verification may include new background checks and intensified confirmation of facts from the original refugee case.
Detention duration uncertainty
A central concern is time. The memo does not describe a clear detention time limit. That uncertainty can affect families, employment, housing, and access to counsel. It also affects evidence-gathering, because key documents may be outside the detention setting.
Warning (detention risk): If DHS initiates re-screening in custody, you may have limited access to your documents and phone. Plan now for a trusted contact and a document packet.
4) Context and significance (litigation and what changes vs. what does not)
Conceptually, the policy shifts the feel of refugee admission. The statutory definition of “refugee” and the baseline eligibility framework remain in the INA. What changes is the operational stance. DHS is treating the period after one year as more like a conditional compliance checkpoint. It is paired with enforcement tools and re-vetting.
There is also active litigation context. The memo was filed in a Minnesota federal case, U.H.A. v. Bondi, and earlier court action reportedly limited detention for a defined group. Injunctions, when they exist, can block certain practices in certain jurisdictions or for certain plaintiffs. They do not always stop DHS nationwide. They also can change quickly on appeal.
jurisdiction matters. Outcomes can differ by circuit law, local ICE practices, and how a federal order is written. Counsel should evaluate whether any existing injunction applies to a specific person and location.
The policy materials also include an impact characterization that describes the change as a serious operational shift for refugees awaiting adjustment. Regardless of labels, the day-to-day consequence is heightened enforcement posture at the one-year mark.
5) Impact on affected individuals (who may be at risk and realistic outcomes)
Who may be affected
The populations discussed publicly include refugees from multiple regions and cohorts. Reports reference Afghan, Ukrainian, Somali, and Venezuelan refugees, among others. Risk is not based on nationality alone. Risk often turns on paperwork status, address stability, and whether DHS can confirm eligibility quickly.
Why some refugees have not adjusted in time
- USCIS processing backlogs and appointment delays
- Mail delivery problems for notices and cards
- Language access barriers and misunderstanding of the requirement
- Frequent moves and failure to update addresses (see 8 C.F.R. § 265.1)
- Incomplete medical exams or missing identity documents
What outcomes can follow re-screening or custody
After re-screening, DHS may:
- Allow the person to proceed with adjustment and issue LPR status, if admissibility is satisfied.
- Delay while requesting evidence, which can prolong uncertainty.
- Place the person in removal proceedings in Immigration Court (EOIR).
In removal proceedings, the refugee may renew an adjustment request in some contexts, seek other relief, or contest removability. The procedural posture depends on DHS charging decisions and the individual’s history.
For many refugees, the most realistic best-case outcome is still approval of a green card through INA § 209, once documentation is complete. The immediate danger is the process. Detention can disrupt the ability to prove identity, prior entries, or admissibility.
Deadline (documentation): If you are at or past one year since admission, assemble an “adjustment-ready” file now. Include proof of refugee admission, identity records, and your I-94 history.
Disqualifying factors and common case weaknesses
While each case is fact-specific, issues that can weaken or bar adjustment can include:
- Certain criminal convictions, depending on the statute and record of conviction (INA § 212(a)(2))
- Fraud or willful misrepresentation (INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i))
- Security-related grounds (INA § 212(a)(3))
- Prior removal orders or complex immigration histories
- Missing proof of identity, admission, or unresolved biographic discrepancies
Some grounds may have waivers in the refugee context. Waiver eligibility is technical and fact-dependent. This is where attorney representation is often decisive.
Evidence typically needed (defense strategy checklist)
A strong adjustment-and-defense posture typically includes:
- Proof of refugee admission and date (I-94, admission stamp, resettlement records)
- Identity and civil documents (passport where available, birth certificate, national ID)
- Address history and proof of residence in the U.S.
- Any prior immigration paperwork, including Notices to Appear if issued
- Certified criminal dispositions, if any arrests occurred
- Evidence explaining delays (USCIS receipt notices, returned mail, change-of-address confirmations)
- Medical exam documentation if required for the adjustment filing
Warning (do not guess): Do not speculate during interviews about dates, travel, or prior names. If you do not know, say so and consult counsel.
Why counsel is critical
This policy combines benefits law (INA § 209) with enforcement mechanics (custody and charging decisions). Attorneys can:
- Coordinate a rapid filing strategy and document production
- Screen for inadmissibility and waiver options
- Engage with ICE on custody, release, or reporting alternatives
- Litigate bond, parole, or habeas issues where available
- Track jurisdiction-specific injunctions and circuit-law differences
If you are detained, ask for a phone call and contact counsel immediately. If you are not detained, speak with counsel before any voluntary appearance prompted by enforcement messaging.
For general information about Immigration Court procedures, EOIR maintains resources at EOIR court process.
6) Official sources and references
Readers should rely on official sources for confirmation and updates:
- USCIS Newsroom (press releases, program announcements, initiative names): https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom
- DHS website (department-wide statements and policy framing): https://www.dhs.gov
- Court docket reference: U.H.A. v. Bondi, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Case No. 24-cv-00123. You can look up filings and orders through the federal court docket system by case number.
Practical verification tip: Use these sources to confirm what DHS says the initiative is, what it directs operationally, and whether any court order changes enforcement in your area.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources:
