ICE Directed to Detain Lawfully Admitted Refugees Who Lack Green Cards After One Year (February 2026)

What happened

Under federal law, a refugee admitted to the United States may apply for permanent residence (a green card) after one year. A directive dated 18 February 2026, signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and USCIS Director Joseph Edlow, turned that date into a trigger for custody. It was filed by government lawyers in court and obtained by CBS News. It reads: "[DHS] must treat the one-year mark as a mandatory re-vetting point for all refugees who have not adjusted to [Lawful Permanent Resident] status, ensuring either that they are scheduled to 'return' to custody for inspection or, if they do not comply, that they be 'returned' to custody through enforcement action" (CBS News).

Refugees may present themselves voluntarily at an immigration office. If they do not, ICE must find, arrest and detain them, and may "maintain custody … for the duration of the inspection and examination process." Officials said the review checks for fraud and for security or criminal concerns, and that refugees who raise red flags may lose their status and be deported. The directive reverses ICE's prior policy that not having adjusted within a year was not, by itself, a legitimate reason to detain. That policy also required ICE to release a detained refugee, or start removal proceedings, within 48 hours (CBS News).

The directive followed:

• a 21 November 2025 order to review all refugees admitted under President Biden;
• a pause on legal-immigration applications from "high risk" countries after the 26 November 2025 shooting of two National Guard members in Washington (see the related entry);
• Operation PARRIS in Minnesota, where lawyers reported refugees being detained and flown to Texas for questioning before a federal judge curtailed the operation (CBS News).

The lawsuit

On 27 February 2026 six refugees and two resettlement agencies sued in federal court in Massachusetts: Jewish Family Service of Western Massachusetts and the International Institute of New England. They are represented by Democracy Forward and the International Refugee Assistance Project. They claim violations of the APA (no notice and comment), the INA, and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The plaintiffs say the policy has already led to arrests and detentions, though none they knew of in Massachusetts (NHPR/GBH).

The agencies point to a catch-22: refugees cannot apply until a year has passed, and USCIS has frozen adjudication for nationals of many countries, leaving more than 100,000 refugees in limbo. An Afghan refugee who spoke to GBH News under a pseudonym, resettled near Springfield in early 2024, has had a green-card application pending for 15 months. "Who will take care of my children if I am arrested and detained?" said one plaintiff, Mona C. (NHPR/GBH). By mid-September 2026 the parties had filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs' class-certification motion was pending (CourtListener docket).

Legal analysis

Upgrade check. Article 7(1)(e) of the Rome Statute covers imprisonment "in violation of fundamental rules of international law" as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population. A detention-for-review policy, even if unlawful, is not shown to be part of such an attack, and the number actually detained under it is unknown. No international crime is in play.

Elements of arbitrary detention (ICCPR Art. 9).

1. Deprivation of liberty. Authorised by the directive. Actual arrests under it are alleged by plaintiffs but not quantified in the sources.
2. Lack of individualised justification. Strong. The trigger is a date and an immigration status, not any finding of risk about the person. Many of those affected cannot meet the condition because their applications are frozen.
3. Duration and review. Custody lasts "for the duration of the inspection and examination process," with no time limit stated. The prior 48-hour rule was withdrawn.

Strongest defence argument. INA § 209 (8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1)) says a refugee who has not acquired permanent residence "shall, at the end of such year period, return or be returned to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security for inspection and examination," so the directive implements the statute's own words; USCIS says it is "implementing law as written by Congress." The plaintiffs answer that the policy reverses "more than 45 years of settled practice" (NHPR/GBH), which treated that provision as an inspection requirement, not a mandate for warrantless arrest and open-ended detention, and that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments limit how it is carried out. The court had not ruled on the merits as of September 2026.

Why this grade

Severe. The policy authorises detention of an identifiable, legally present protected group on the basis of status rather than individual conduct, in tension with ICCPR Art. 9 and the Refugee Protocol, with alleged arrests already under way. It is not critical, because its scale in practice and its legality have not yet been established by a court.