Go to latest update: November 20, 2025
Some answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the court’s November 19 order are available here.
A.C.R. et al. v. Noem et al., No. 1:25-cv-03962, (E.D.N.Y), is a proposed nationwide class action challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of a 2022 policy that provided deferred action to many children and youth who had been granted special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or similar harms. The SIJS Deferred Action Policy provided protection from deportation and eligibility to apply for work permits to SIJS beneficiaries who are forced to wait years for the chance to apply for lawful permanent residency due to visa backlogs.
The plaintiffs — nine immigrant youth and two legal services providers, Central American Refugee Center (CARECEN-NY) and Centro Legal de la Raza — and the proposed class are represented by Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), the National Immigration Project, Public Counsel, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, and Lowenstein Sandler LLP. The complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, filed July 17, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, assert that terminating the SIJS Deferred Action Policy without notice and without justification violated the Administrative Procedure Act, exposing thousands of SIJS beneficiaries to the risk of deportation – even though state courts have determined that children granted SIJS should not be returned to their countries of origin. The lawsuit seeks to reinstate the 2022 SIJS Deferred Action Policy, which has protected approximately 200,000 children and youth from deportation.
November 19, 2025 — Court stays rescission of the SIJS Deferred Action Policy
In a November 19 order, the court granted a stay of the government’s rescission of the 2022 SIJS Deferred Action Policy. As a result, the 2022 SIJS Deferred Action Policy is once again in effect, and the court stated that “the government must therefore conduct deferred-action and employment authorization adjudications pursuant to the 2022 Policy Alert,” although the court did not impose a timeline for completing these adjudications.
The court found that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the policy reversal was unlawful for several reasons, including that the government did not consider reliance interests or alternatives to rescinding the policy. The court also ruled that, absent the stay, the Plaintiffs were likely to face irreparable harm because of the heightened risk of removal they would face without the protection of deferred action. The opinion did not grant everything the Plaintiffs requested, as the court deferred a ruling on class certification and chose not to grant relief in the form of a preliminary injunction. Finally, the court enjoined the government from removing the named Plaintiffs during the pendency of the litigation.