When Parole Is Revoked: Expedited Removal, Federal Litigation, and the Power of Temporary Restraining Orders 

When Parole Is Revoked: Expedited Removal, Federal Litigation, and the Power of Temporary Restraining Orders

In recent years, parolees at the U.S. border have increasingly faced abrupt revocations of their parole status and subsequent referrals to expedited removal proceedings. This sudden shift—often implemented without notice or opportunity to be heard—raises significant constitutional and statutory concerns. However, litigation in federal court, particularly through the strategic use of Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs), has proven to be a powerful tool in protecting individuals’ rights and preventing unlawful removals.

1. Overview of Parole Revocation and Expedited Removal

Parole Authority:
Under INA § 212(d)(5)(A), DHS has discretion to temporarily admit noncitizens who are otherwise inadmissible “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” Parole does not confer lawful status, but it allows individuals to remain in the U.S. temporarily under specified conditions.

Revocation Trends:
In recent enforcement patterns, DHS has issued parole revocation notices en masse, targeting those who were previously permitted entry under parole programs (e.g., CHNV, CBP One). Revocation is typically accompanied by a Notice to Appear (NTA) or, more troublingly, a referral to expedited removal under INA § 235(b)(1), which allows for removal without a hearing before an immigration judge.

Due Process Concerns:
This practice raises red flags under the Fifth Amendment. Individuals granted parole often have settled expectations and may have initiated immigration benefits (such as asylum, TPS, or adjustment of status). Revoking parole without prior notice and referring them to expedited removal circumvents procedural safeguards and deprives individuals of an opportunity to contest their removal.

2. Legal Challenges and Federal Court Jurisdiction

Habeas Corpus Petitions:
Noncitizens subjected to arbitrary parole revocations and expedited removal can challenge their detention and removal through petitions for writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Although the REAL ID Act limits judicial review in many immigration contexts, habeas remains available for constitutional and legal questions concerning detention and removal procedures.

APA and Constitutional Claims:
Federal lawsuits may also allege violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that DHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by revoking parole without a rational basis or adhering to agency policy. Plaintiffs may assert constitutional claims as well, including:

• Procedural due process violations (lack of notice and opportunity to be heard).
  
  

• Equal protection violations, if discriminatory enforcement patterns are shown.
  
  

3. Strategic Use of Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs)

Urgency of TROs:
Because expedited removal can occur within days—sometimes hours—after parole is revoked, immediate relief is essential. Federal courts can issue TROs under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to enjoin removal and maintain the status quo while the court considers the merits of the case.

Elements for a Successful TRO:

• Likelihood of success on the merits: Demonstrating that DHS’s actions likely violated constitutional or statutory rights.
  
  

• Irreparable harm: Removal would foreclose all future immigration relief and could place the individual at risk of persecution.
  
  

• Balance of equities: The harm to the individual outweighs the government’s interest in removal.
  
  

• Public interest: Upholding due process and lawful administrative conduct serves the public interest.
  
  

Recent Examples:
Advocates have successfully obtained TROs where parolees had pending asylum applications or had complied fully with DHS check-ins, yet faced removal without a hearing. In several jurisdictions, courts enjoined removals, ordered the government to reinstate parole, or required the opportunity for a full immigration hearing.

4. Practice Pointers for Advocates

• Immediate Response: File a TRO as soon as the parole revocation or expedited removal process is triggered.
  
  

• Gather Supporting Documents: Include I-94s, parole notices, proof of compliance with ICE/CBP reporting, pending immigration applications, and declarations outlining irreparable harm.
  
  

• Coordinate with Federal Litigation Units: Partner with immigration litigation experts or nonprofits that specialize in federal court practice.
  
  

• Challenge Lack of Notice: Emphasize the deprivation of fair procedure—often the strongest due process argument.
  
  

Conclusion

The government's revocation of parole and use of expedited removal without adequate process undermines the integrity of U.S. immigration law and violates core constitutional protections. But these removals are not always inevitable. Federal litigation—particularly swift TRO filings—can offer critical protection. Attorneys and advocates must remain vigilant and prepared to intervene forcefully when due process is denied.

If you would like template pleadings, recent federal court case citations, or assistance with a particular litigation strategy, I can assist in drafting or identifying relevant legal arguments and procedural guidance.