A federal court has approved a Settlement Agreement in the J.O.P. v. DHS case (Case No. 19-CV-01944-SAG, D. Md.), a class action lawsuit challenging a 2019 policy on the treatment of asylum applications for individuals previously determined to be “Unaccompanied Children” (UC). The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted final approval of the settlement agreement reached by the parties.
Filed in July 2019, the lawsuit claimed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) unlawfully rejected asylum applications of individuals in immigration court removal proceedings who no longer met the UC definition when filing. The plaintiffs argued that the 2019 policy violated the rights of asylum seekers by applying a one-year filing deadline that had not existed under prior regulations.
The case gained momentum when the court halted the implementation of the 2019 policy later that year. In December 2020, the court certified the lawsuit as a nationwide class action and ordered the government not to oppose postponements of immigration court proceedings for class members awaiting decisions on their asylum applications. After extensive negotiations, the plaintiffs and the federal government reached a Settlement Agreement, which the court approved on November 25, 2024.
The Settlement Agreement applies to individuals who meet specific criteria. To qualify as a Class Member, individuals must have been determined to be Unaccompanied Children and filed an asylum application pending with USCIS on or before February 24, 2025.
Additionally, at the time of filing the asylum application, they must have been either 18 years or older or had a parent or legal guardian available to provide care in the U.S. Finally, their asylum application must not have been adjudicated by USCIS. Individuals previously designated as Unaccompanied Children who have not yet filed for asylum may also qualify if they submit an application by February 24, 2025, and meet the other criteria.
Under the Settlement Agreement, USCIS is required to adjudicate asylum applications on their merits, even if the applicant is in removal proceedings. The one-year filing deadline will not apply to these applications, and USCIS will consider cases even if an immigration judge ruled that USCIS lacks jurisdiction. If an immigration judge refuses to postpone removal proceedings, USCIS must still process the application.
The agreement also includes provisions for previously rejected applications. USCIS will retract prior denials of qualifying applications and reinstate them for review. For individuals in urgent circumstances, USCIS will establish an expedited process for asylum adjudications. Additionally, DHS attorneys in removal proceedings are barred from opposing requests to postpone or dismiss cases while USCIS considers the asylum application.
ICE will not deport Class Members with final orders of removal while their applications are under review. If USCIS grants asylum to a Class Member with a removal order, government attorneys will generally not oppose motions to reopen removal cases. The agreement also requires USCIS to issue a policy memo detailing these procedures, which will remain in effect for at least three years.
The Settlement Agreement will last for 548 days after its effective date, and suspected violations can be reported to class counsel for resolution. This agreement offers an opportunity for fair adjudication to asylum seekers previously classified as Unaccompanied Children and ensures their applications are not unfairly denied due to technicalities.
For more information, individuals should review the Settlement Agreement or consult an immigration attorney.
Kishor Panthi
View More PostsKishor Panthi is the founder and editor-in-chief of Khasokhas and NepYork. He is the author of three books, “Kampan,” "UNTRANSLATABLE" and “Zero Mile.” He writes about social issues, immigration, and politics.
