top of page

ICWC v. Noem Practice Advisory & Toolkit

  • Writer: Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law
    Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law
  • Jun 5
  • 2 min read

Updated: Jun 17

Immigration Center for Women and Children v. Noem,

Case No. 2:25-cv-09848-AB-AS, 2026 WL 1455004 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2026) 


On May 20, 2026, the court in Immigration Center for Women and Children v. Noem, Case No. 2:25-cv-09848-AB-AS, 2026 WL 1455004 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2026) (hereinafter “ICWC v. Noem”) issued an order temporarily restoring protections for certain immigrant survivors with pending petitions. The order addressed the 2025 Guidance issued by then-Acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello and two related Trump administration policies resulting in the routine arrest, detention, and removal of immigrants with pending VAWA, U visa, and T visa petitions (collectively “2025 Guidance”). The court certified three classes and stayed the 2025 Guidance and policies nationwide as to those classes. This practice advisory explains the impact of the order and aims to provide practitioners with the tools to benefit from it. 


In brief: 

  1. By staying the 2025 Guidance, the order reinstates the 2021 and 2011 policy guidance that generally protected against the detention and deportation of individuals with pending VAWA, U visa, and T visa petitions; 

  2. By staying ICE’s policy of unilaterally revoking deferred action status issued to U and T visa petitioners by detaining and removing them without USCIS having revoked that status, the order prohibits ICE from detaining or removing such individuals while in valid periods of deferred action status; and 

  3. By staying ICE’s policy of removing U and T petitioners who request a stay of their removal orders without first obtaining a determination of their prima facie eligibility for those visas, the order requires that petitioners who request a stay should no longer be removed until they first receive such a prima facie determination (a bona fide determination should qualify as a prima facie determination for these purposes). 


Class counsel and the Organizational Plaintiffs in ICWC v. Noem have prepared the enclosed templates that we hope will help practitioners and class members implement the order in their individual cases:








If you have questions about these materials or if the government raises issues not contemplated by these materials and you would like to discuss, please reach out to the ICWC v. Noem litigation team at ICWC_ClassCounsel@centerforhumanrights.org


Class counsel are the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (CHRCL), Public Counsel, The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), and La Raza Centro Legal (LRCL). Organizational Plaintiffs are the Immigration Center for Women and Children (ICWC), California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice (CCIJ), CHIRLA, and LRCL.



Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law

Your generosity will allow us to help more in need

Project Reunify CHRCL

With your support, CHRCL can extend its reach, providing crucial support to direct service providers and litigating to further the fight against injustice. 

About CHRCL

CHRCL is a legal services support center with recognized expertise in complex litigation, constitutional law, and laws targeting vulnerable populations. These populations include immigrants, refugees, at-risk children, survivors of domestic violence, prisoners in solitary confinement, and members of the LGBT communities.

Contact CHRCL

1505 E 17th St. Suite 117

Santa Ana, CA, 92705

admin@centerforhumanrights.org

Follow CHRCL

  • Black Facebook Icon
  • Artboard 1_edited_edited
  • Black Instagram Icon
  • LinkedIn

© 2024 by CHRCL 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Tax ID: 95-3700335

For further legal help, visit LawHelpCA https://www.lawhelpca.org/

bottom of page