(UNITED STATES) — The Trump-Vance administration launched a new DHS policy initiative that instructs Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest and detain certain lawfully admitted refugees who have lived in the United States for a year without obtaining permanent resident status, prompting swift court challenges and warnings from resettlement groups about damage to trust in the refugee program.
DHS calls the initiative Operation Post-Admission Refugee Reinvestigation and Integrity Strengthening, or Operation PARRIS, and advocates say it carries immediate consequences for people who were already admitted and have been living in U.S. communities.
A February 18, 2026 memo issued by the directors of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and ICE established Operation PARRIS, according to advocates challenging the policy. Under it, ICE must treat covered refugees as applicants for admission and subject them to mandatory detention under INA § 235.
Refugees and advocacy organizations argue the policy upends longstanding practice by turning a delay in obtaining a green card into a detention trigger, even when a refugee’s presence remains lawful.
The February 18 memo instructs ICE to arrest and detain refugees who have not adjusted their immigration status within one year of arrival. The government position, as described by challengers, is that ICE may conduct the arrests without a warrant.
DHS also claims it may hold refugees for the duration of “inspection and examination” proceedings. In that framework, the government treats the refugees as if they are undergoing an inspection-style process, even though they already entered the country as refugees.
During those proceedings, DHS says it will examine whether the person should have been admitted as a refugee in the first place. If DHS determines that “the individual was not properly classified as a refugee” at the time of admission, the agency will terminate refugee status and initiate removal proceedings.
The policy centers on refugees who have lived in the United States for one year and have not adjusted to permanent resident status. Advocates say the agency treats that one-year point as a pivot, moving people into a posture that triggers mandatory detention.
Litigation began quickly, and at least one federal court has already blocked enforcement in a case tied to Minnesota. On January 28, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted a temporary restraining order in U.H.A. v. Bondi.
The temporary restraining order enjoins DHS from arresting or detaining unadjusted refugees in Minnesota who have not been charged with a ground of removal. The order also requires the release of refugees detained under the policy, even if detained outside Minnesota.
Temporary restraining orders are typically early, emergency rulings that preserve the status quo while a court weighs the legal claims. The Minnesota order addresses enforcement in that case and does not, by itself, resolve the broader dispute over DHS authority asserted in the memoranda.
A separate lawsuit seeks broader relief. Refugees filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging two agency memoranda that the plaintiffs say reverse more than 45 years of settled practice.
The Massachusetts complaint argues that federal law governing refugee adjustment of status does not authorize detention. It also contends the government’s interpretation contradicts decades of consistent agency guidance.
Plaintiffs in the class action asked the court to vacate the memoranda, halt their nationwide enforcement, and restore longstanding legal protections for refugees. The filing frames Operation PARRIS and related guidance as a reversal of how admitted refugees who have not yet adjusted have historically been treated.
Advocates challenging the DHS policy describe a system that effectively uses timing to expand detention authority. They argue refugees can be placed at risk of arrest based on the pace of processing, rather than any change in their underlying lawful status.
Critics also dispute the idea that refugee status simply ends at the one-year mark. Refugee status does not expire after one year, but under the new policy, advocates say refugees who have not received green cards by day 366 after arrival face mandatory arrest and potentially indefinite detention.
The fairness argument, as described in the lawsuits and advocacy statements, focuses on delays that refugees cannot control. Critics say the government can freeze or slow adjustment decisions and then use the lack of adjustment as the basis for detention.
“The policy creates what critics describe as a ‘trap’: by freezing adjustment applications and then using agency delays as a basis for detention, the Trump-Vance administration penalizes refugees for the government’s own failure to act,” the Massachusetts complaint argues.
Advocates say community disruption has already followed. They report arrests and detentions that have separated families and disrupted communities.
Resettlement groups and refugee advocates also warn the policy could chill participation in systems designed to support new arrivals. They say families may hesitate to engage with resettlement agencies, service providers, employers, or schools if routine interactions risk exposing them to arrest tied to their adjustment timeline.
Beth Oppenheim, CEO of HIAS, said: “This policy is a transparent effort to detain and potentially deport thousands of people who are legally present in this country, people the U.S. government itself welcomed after years of extreme vetting.”
Oppenheim, who has 25 years of refugee protection experience, called the memo “a betrayal of our values and our legal commitments.”
World Relief, an evangelical resettlement agency, voiced concern that detaining previously approved refugees undermines trust in the U.S. refugee program. The agency also warned it could further slow admissions that are already at historically low levels.
Advocates opposing the DHS policy emphasize the screening refugees already undergo before arrival. They say refugees pass multiple rounds of interviews, biometric screening, and security checks before resettlement, and they describe refugees as one of the most vetted immigrant groups.
Those groups argue Operation PARRIS diverts limited government resources toward reassessing people who have already been thoroughly screened and safely resettled. They also warn detention risks retraumatizing refugees who followed every legal requirement.
The government’s approach under Operation PARRIS relies on concepts drawn from immigration inspection and detention frameworks. Challengers argue DHS is using those concepts in a way that does not fit refugees who were already admitted, while DHS asserts authority to treat them as applicants for admission for purposes of INA § 235.
The disputed mechanics hinge on how DHS frames the obligation to seek adjustment after admission. Under the policy, as described by advocates, DHS treats a failure to adjust within one year as the trigger for arrest and detention.
That framing has heightened concerns because it ties mandatory detention to a milestone that may be shaped by agency processing. Critics say the policy effectively converts administrative backlog into a law enforcement rationale.
The Minnesota temporary restraining order drew attention because it reached beyond state lines in one respect. It requires the release of refugees detained under the policy, even if detained outside Minnesota, so long as they are covered by the order’s terms.
The Massachusetts class action, by contrast, aims directly at the underlying memoranda and asks for nationwide relief. It argues DHS cannot adopt the detention approach described in the guidance and asks the court to restore the prior understanding the plaintiffs say governed for decades.
While the courtroom fights proceed, advocates and resettlement organizations say the policy’s uncertainty ripples through daily life. They warn employers, schools, and service providers may struggle to plan when people who are lawfully present face the prospect of arrest and detention tied to their adjustment timeline.
The controversy over Operation PARRIS comes as DHS also pursues separate changes affecting people with pending immigration claims. On February 20, 2026, DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would significantly restrict work authorization for asylum seekers.
Under the proposal, DHS would extend the waiting period for employment authorization documents from 150 days to 365 days after filing an asylum application. The rule would also allow DHS to suspend new work-permit applications based on the size and pace of the asylum backlog.
Advocates and immigration lawyers have pointed to a common theme in the moves: tightening access to stability while cases remain pending. In the refugee context, critics say Operation PARRIS increases the risk of detention for people awaiting green card processing; in the asylum context, the proposed rule would delay work authorization and allow DHS to pause applications based on backlog conditions.
Key dates now anchor the unfolding disputes. DHS leadership issued the February 18, 2026 memo creating Operation PARRIS, a federal judge in Minnesota entered the January 28, 2026 temporary restraining order in U.H.A. v. Bondi, and DHS published the February 20, 2026 notice of proposed rulemaking on asylum applicant work authorization.
For opponents of Operation PARRIS, the legal fight turns on whether DHS can use inspection-based authority and mandatory detention concepts against refugees who were already admitted and remain lawfully present. For supporters within the administration, the memos present a post-admission integrity initiative that focuses on classification questions and expanded scrutiny.
Oppenheim said the new approach amounts to a fundamental breach of the government’s commitments to people it admitted as refugees, calling it “a betrayal of our values and our legal commitments.”
