(SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA) — Noncitizens with pending immigration court cases in Northern and Central California may have a new, immediate defense tool after a federal judge paused a 2025 policy that expanded civil Immigration Courthouse Arrests in and around EOIR courthouses within ICE’s San Francisco Area of Responsibility.
On December 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts issued a 38-page stay order in Unknown Plaintiffs v. Noem, case 5:25-cv-06487-PCP (N.D. Cal.), temporarily blocking ICE and EOIR from carrying out widespread civil arrests tied to hearings on EOIR’s non-detained docket within that AOR.
The court provisionally certified a “courthouse-arrest class” and found the challenged guidance likely “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it failed to grapple with record evidence of a chilling effect on court attendance and missed-hearing consequences.
For defense counsel and respondents, the practical takeaway is straightforward: this order can support (1) safer attendance at hearings within the covered geography while the stay remains in effect and (2) targeted motions and bond arguments when ICE conduct near courthouses undermines due process or access to counsel. It does not end enforcement nationwide, and it does not terminate removal proceedings. But it may change the risk calculus for people who must appear in person.
Defense strategy: using the stay to protect court access and mitigate arrest-driven case damage
The most immediate relief option here is procedural rather than substantive. The strategy is to use the federal stay, plus existing EOIR tools, to:
- Keep respondents appearing in court.
- Prevent in absentia orders.
- Attack prejudicial conduct tied to courthouse arrest practices.
This strategy typically has three tracks:
- Attendance and safety planning for future hearings — so the person can litigate asylum, cancellation, or other relief.
- Motions to reopen or rescind in absentia orders where fear of arrest caused a missed hearing.
- Detention and bond advocacy where a courthouse arrest, transfer, or conditions interfere with counsel and case preparation.
Because the order is geographically limited and may be appealed, counsel should treat it as a strong, but time-sensitive, litigation tool.
Warning (Scope): The stay described here applies to the ICE San Francisco AOR and to the defined class tied to non-detained EOIR hearings. People outside that area may not be covered. Ask counsel to confirm coverage before relying on it.
Eligibility and legal hooks: where this argument fits in immigration court
This stay does not confer immigration status (unlike asylum, INA § 208, or cancellation, INA § 240A). Instead, it supports procedural protections that make it possible to pursue relief.
Common legal hooks include:
- Motions practice under EOIR rules — request continuances, change of venue, telephonic appearances, and protective orders. Authority often arises under 8 C.F.R. Part 1003, including general motion practice provisions.
- Due process-based arguments — tied to meaningful access to counsel and a fair hearing.
- In absentia rescission — where applicable, especially for noncitizens ordered removed after failing to appear. Statutory grounds typically arise under INA § 240(b)(5) (lack of notice or “exceptional circumstances”).
- Bond and custody review arguments — tied to flight risk, danger, and interference with counsel, depending on the person’s detention authority (e.g., INA § 236(a) and § 236(c)).
The federal court’s APA holding matters because it frames the challenged policy as defective administrative action. While immigration judges do not “apply the APA” to enjoin agency policies, practitioners can still use the findings to support record-based arguments about chilling effects, access to counsel, and reliability of attendance.
Evidence: what to gather to make the stay useful in a real case
To turn the stay into a case-winning record, practitioners typically need concrete proof. The most helpful evidence falls into five categories:
- Hearing documentation
- EOIR hearing notices, check-in instructions, and courtroom location details.
- Proof of prior compliance, including past appearances and sign-ins.
- Arrest-risk and chilling-effect evidence
- Declarations describing fear of courthouse arrest and its impact on appearance.
- Community reports of courthouse arrests, tied to time and place.
- Any written guidance or public statements showing expanded enforcement.
- Counsel access and prejudice
- Proof of inability to consult counsel because of arrest, transfer, or phone limits.
- Medical records or affidavits if detention conditions impair participation.
- Timeline showing lost preparation time before a merits hearing.
- Good-faith appearance efforts
- Transit receipts, rideshare logs, parking receipts, or phone geolocation history.
- Witness statements from family members or advocates who accompanied the person.
- Class membership facts
- Proof the person is on EOIR’s non-detained docket in the San Francisco AOR.
- Calendar hearing information demonstrating the “courthouse-arrest class” link.
This evidence is critical for reopening after an in absentia order or for emergency motion practice after an arrest.
Deadline (In Absentia): In absentia rescission has strict statutory time and notice rules. Do not wait to speak with counsel if a removal order was entered after a missed hearing. Strategy depends on whether the claim is lack of notice or exceptional circumstances under INA § 240(b)(5).
Strengthening factors: what tends to help respondents
Several case features make courthouse-arrest-related motions and custody arguments more persuasive:
- A strong attendance history and documented compliance with check-ins.
- Stable equities such as U.S. citizen children, long-term residence, and ongoing relief applications.
- Documented fear tied to specific courthouse events, not generalized anxiety.
- Clear prejudice to the case (e.g., losing counsel contact before a merits hearing, missing deadlines, or being transferred far from counsel and witnesses).
- Prompt action after an arrest or missed hearing, including immediate motion filing and updated address compliance (INA § 265 and related notice rules often matter in practice).
The court’s APA discussion of “chilling effects” is most powerful when paired with individualized proof that the respondent faced the same dynamic.
Weakening factors: what commonly undercuts these arguments
The government will often argue a respondent’s issues are unrelated to the paused policy. Common weaknesses include:
- A poor record of appearances without corroboration of obstacles.
- Address problems that complicate notice arguments.
- Criminal history triggering mandatory detention, bars to relief, or danger findings.
- Speculative claims of fear without a timeline, location details, or corroboration.
- Proceedings outside the covered geography or outside the defined class.
Keep in mind the stay is temporary. ICE may seek appellate review, narrowing, or new guidance designed to survive APA scrutiny.
Warning (Appeal Risk): Federal stays can change quickly on appeal. Counsel should monitor the docket in case 5:25-cv-06487-PCP and related litigation before making irreversible decisions.
Bars and disqualifiers: what this stay does not fix
This strategy can protect court access, but it does not erase statutory bars or categorical disqualifiers:
- Asylum filing deadlines and exceptions — INA § 208(a)(2)(B) and (D).
- Criminal and security-related bars that may block asylum, withholding, or cancellation.
- Mandatory detention in some cases under INA § 236(c), limiting bond options.
- Reinstatement of removal — limits on relief for individuals with prior removal orders (often affecting asylum eligibility and channeling cases into withholding-only proceedings).
This stay also does not automatically suppress evidence or terminate proceedings. Those outcomes remain heavily fact-dependent and jurisdiction-sensitive.
Realistic expectations: typical outcomes
Near-term, practical outcomes from this order are procedural:
- More reliable court attendance for covered respondents while the stay is active.
- Stronger motions to reopen when a missed hearing is linked to documented courthouse-arrest fear.
- Better bond narratives when arrest practices disrupt counsel access or cause destabilizing transfers.
This order typically will not grant asylum, cancellation, or adjustment by itself. It may, however, preserve the ability to pursue those forms of relief without the added deterrent of courthouse enforcement.
Why attorney representation is critical right now
Courthouse-arrest litigation intersects removal defense, detention law, and federal-court remedies — areas that move fast and vary by circuit and local EOIR practice. A qualified immigration attorney can:
- Confirm whether the person falls within the class definition and geography.
- Decide whether to request remote appearance, continuance, or protective measures.
- Build a record that connects enforcement practices to prejudice in the case.
- Evaluate detention authority, bond eligibility, and custody strategy.
- Coordinate parallel federal-court and EOIR steps when appropriate.
Self-representation is especially risky when a missed hearing could trigger an in absentia order under INA § 240(b)(5).
Deadline (Hearing Attendance): Missing an EOIR hearing can result in an in absentia removal order. If you cannot attend, contact your lawyer immediately and document the reason.
Government resources (official)
- EOIR information and immigration court updates: EOIR information and immigration court updates
- USCIS case and policy information (for related benefits filings): USCIS case and policy information
⚖️ 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:
– AILA Lawyer Referral
Federal Judge P. Casey Pitts blocked a 2025 policy allowing ICE arrests at immigration courts in Northern and Central California. The court found the policy likely illegal under the APA for ignoring evidence that it deterred people from attending hearings. This stay allows non-detained individuals in the San Francisco area to attend court with reduced risk of arrest, though it is temporary and subject to appeal.
