(UNITED STATES) — A Department of Homeland Security memo dated February 18, 2026 formally expands ICE detention authority for lawfully admitted refugees who have not yet adjusted to permanent residency, redefining refugee status as contingent and triggering mandatory re-vetting.
1) Overview of the policy change
February’s directive, issued under DHS and signed by Joseph Edlow of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Todd Lyons of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, sets a new enforcement posture for certain legal refugees. The memo frames the one-year mark after admission as an enforcement trigger when a refugee has not adjusted to lawful permanent resident status.
January’s launch of Operation PARRIS laid the operational groundwork for what the February 18, 2026 memo makes explicit: refugees who remain non‑LPR after a year can be required to present for a renewed inspection process, and ICE may detain them to carry it out. For many refugees, the practical change is the expectation of a compulsory government touchpoint at the one-year mark that can involve custody, not just paperwork.
US immigration law has long required most refugees to apply for a green card after one year of physical presence. The new shift is how DHS connects that adjustment obligation to detention authority and re-inspection procedures. That connection is now the center of active litigation, including a temporary restraining order affecting Minnesota.
2) Official statements and key quotes
Joseph Edlow and Todd Lyons describe the policy as mandatory at the one-year mark for refugees who have not adjusted to lawful permanent resident status. The memo’s key operational claim is a “detain-and-inspect” approach, described as aligning post-admission checks with vetting applied to other admission contexts.
In the government’s framing, the one-year point is not simply a reminder to file or finish a green card process. It is positioned as a required re-vetting moment, paired with an inspection and examination process that can occur in ICE custody. Custody, under the memo’s terms, may last for the duration of inspection and examination, which can vary by case.
⚠️ Mandatory re-vetting at the one-year mark is described as requiring return to custody for inspection or enforcement action if non-compliant.
Officials also point to internal reviews suggesting some recent refugee cohorts were “insufficiently vetted,” including references to a 42% figure tied to potential security concerns. Because that number is described as coming from internal reviews, it is best treated as the government’s justification claim rather than a publicly validated rate.
3) Target population and legal framework
Refugees implicated by the memo are defined narrowly in status terms, not by nationality. The target population is refugees admitted lawfully, present in the United States for at least one year, and not yet adjusted to lawful permanent resident status.
DHS’s legal theory rests on Immigration and Nationality Act concepts that govern inspection, admissibility, and the adjustment process for refugees. The memo treats refugee status as functionally contingent pending adjustment, then links that contingency to the agency’s power to compel a return for inspection and re-vetting.
Process matters here. “Return to custody for inspection/re-vetting” describes a pathway that can include notice to appear for an interview or reporting event, identity and records review, and a refreshed look at security-related information. A case can be cleared, held for more review, or routed into enforcement steps depending on findings and procedural posture.
Separation between adjustment and enforcement remains central. Applying for adjustment is an administrative requirement in many cases. The memo goes further by describing detention authority as the mechanism to enforce compliance with the re-verification step.
⚠️ Mandatory re-vetting at the one-year mark is described as requiring return to custody for inspection or enforcement action if non-compliant.
Table 1: Pre- and post-policy practice for refugees
| Aspect | Pre-Policy Practice (prior to 2026) | Post-Policy Practice (after February 18, 2026) | Source/Quoted Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-year mark after admission | Typically treated as a milestone to apply for adjustment; detention not based solely on non-adjustment | Treated as a mandatory re-vetting point for refugees who have not adjusted to LPR | DHS memo dated February 18, 2026; rescission of 2010 policy |
| Basis for custody | Detention generally tied to criminal grounds, flight risk, or other enforcement triggers | “Detain-and-inspect” posture for non‑LPR refugees at one-year mark, including enforcement action if non-compliant | Memo language describing “return” to custody and “maintain custody” |
| Role of ICE vs. USCIS | USCIS manages benefits processing; ICE custody not a routine step for one-year adjustment | USCIS and ICE leadership jointly describe a custody-backed inspection model | Memo signed by Joseph Edlow and Todd Lyons |
| Framing of refugee status | Refugee status treated as lawfully present absent separate grounds | Status treated as contingent pending adjustment, with inspection authority emphasized | INA-based arguments in DHS filings and memo |
| Immediate legal constraint | No TRO specific to one-year non-adjustment detention posture | TRO limits detention in Minnesota context while litigation proceeds | January 28, 2026 order by Judge John Tunheim |
4) Operation PARRIS and timeline
Operation PARRIS—described as a post-admission reverification and integrity initiative—functions as the operational engine for the one-year re-check. In practice, “mandatory re-vetting” can include re-running identity indicators, refreshing security screening, checking documents and immigration history, and conducting an interview to resolve inconsistencies.
USCIS’s role is often tied to records, benefit history, and fraud-related review. ICE’s role is tied to custody, transport, and enforcement action when a person does not report or when the government asserts a legal basis to detain during inspection.
Federal court litigation adds friction rather than switching the program fully off. A temporary restraining order can pause specific conduct against a defined class or geography, while other administrative steps may continue in parallel, depending on what the order covers and how DHS interprets it.
Table 2: Key dates and actions timeline
| Date | Event | Authority/Agency | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| January 9, 2026 | Operation PARRIS launched | DHS / U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services | Post-admission reverification and integrity initiative |
| January 28, 2026 | Temporary restraining order issued in Minnesota-related case | U.S. District Court; Judge John Tunheim | Blocks detention of refugees in Minnesota under challenged interpretation |
| February 18, 2026 | DHS memo expands detention authority and rescinds 2010 policy | USCIS and ICE leadership (Joseph Edlow; Todd Lyons) | Positions one-year mark as mandatory re-vetting point |
5) Geographic and demographic focus
Minnesota has been a central early focus, with reporting and filings describing a concentration involving a Somali refugee community. Geographic targeting in enforcement does not always mean uniform arrest activity. It can also mean cohort-based outreach, interview scheduling, and prioritized screening for a defined population.
The commonly cited headcount is about 5,600 refugees in Minnesota tied to the initial operational focus. Even when officials describe a specific cohort, individual outcomes can differ. Screening can end with clearance, further inquiry, or enforcement steps, depending on what the government says it finds.
Any demographic framing demands care. National origin and community concentration can overlap with resettlement patterns, which may explain why a specific state or community becomes a focal point. Verified numbers and documentable claims should carry more weight than social-media accounts or generalized assumptions.
6) Legal context and challenges
A central legal fault line is the claimed reversal of a 2010-era policy stance. The February memo expressly rescinds that earlier approach, which stated that failure to obtain a green card was not, by itself, a proper basis for detention or removal. That rescission matters because it signals DHS’s intent to treat the one-year adjustment point as an enforcement gateway.
Judge John Tunheim’s January 28, 2026 temporary restraining order blocks detention of refugees in Minnesota under the contested interpretation. A TRO is an emergency order. It preserves the status quo for a limited time and scope. It does not resolve the underlying statutory questions.
DHS’s February 18, 2026 memo reads as both a policy instruction and a litigation posture. It lays out how the agency intends to justify custody as part of inspection and examination, rather than as punishment for delay. Removal is not automatic under that framework. Even when DHS asserts authority to detain, any move toward deportation typically requires a legal process that turns on individual facts and procedural rights.
7) Impact on affected individuals
Mandatory interviews and “return to custody” can play out in several ways. A refugee may receive instructions to report at a set time, present identity documents, and answer questions tied to original admissions records and post-arrival history. Noncompliance, under the memo’s terms, can lead to enforcement action to “return” the person to custody.
Transfers can add pressure. Advocacy groups have reported that some refugees arrested in Minnesota were moved to detention settings in Texas, which can disrupt family life and make it harder to consult counsel in person. Location often affects access to documents too. It also affects how quickly representatives can respond to interviews and records requests.
Possible outcomes after re-vetting range from being cleared to facing more review, being placed into removal proceedings, or being detained during proceedings. Red flags cited in policy discussions can include suspected fraud in the original claim or new security concerns, but each case turns on its record and the government’s evidence.
8) Official sources and references
USCIS’s newsroom materials are the clearest place to track how DHS describes Operation PARRIS and related fraud or integrity efforts. DHS press releases can provide operation-level statements, including references to broader initiatives that appear alongside PARRIS.
Court filings and docket access, when publicly available through official channels, remain the best method to confirm what relief a TRO grants, who is covered, and what conduct is paused. For statutory background, the Immigration and Nationality Act and related notes are available through Cornell’s Legal Information Institute at law.cornell.edu, while agency updates are typically posted on uscis.gov.
This article discusses legal changes with potential personal consequences. Information is based on government filings and court documents through February 2026 and should not substitute for legal counsel.
Readers should verify current status with official DHS/USCIS/ICE updates.
