MASSA VIANA LAW | IMMIGRATION INSIGHTS | April 2026
4 Things You Need to Know This Week
Stay updated with the most important Immigration News and developments that matter most to you — clearly explained, with guidance on what to do next.
1- The Supreme Court Heard Arguments This Week on Ending TPS for Haitians and Syrians. Up to 1.3 Million People Are at Stake.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in the Trump administration’s effort to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from Haiti and Syria. The administration is appealing lower court orders that blocked DHS from terminating TPS for both groups. If the Court sides with the administration, authorities could strip protections from up to 1.3 million people across 17 countries, exposing them to possible deportation.
The Court previously allowed the administration to end TPS for Venezuelans while litigation continued, without providing written reasoning. The core legal question now is whether the administration can terminate TPS designations faster than existing court orders allow. Haitian and Syrian TPS holders, many of whom have lived in the United States for years and have U.S.-citizen children, are watching closely. A ruling is expected before the end of the Court’s term in June or July 2026.
What this means for you: If you hold TPS from Haiti, Syria, or any other designated country, your current status and work authorization remain valid until they expire or a court order changes the situation. A ruling is expected before the end of the Court’s term this summer. Contact our office to review your case.
2- Federal Judge Orders USCIS to Process 83 Stalled Green Card Applications from 39-Country List
On April 25, Chief Judge George Russell III of the U.S. District Court for Maryland issued a preliminary injunction ordering USCIS to resume processing 83 permanent residency applications that had been frozen indefinitely. The case, Saghafi v. Edlow (No. 8:26-cv-00100), was brought on behalf of 83 plaintiffs by attorneys Curtis Morrison and Garrett Carter May. The applications were paused under the Trump administration’s “Countries of Identified Concern” policy, which expanded from 19 to 39 countries in a December 2025 executive order. USCIS responded to that order by halting final decisions on all green card applications filed by immigrants from those countries, with no set timeline for when processing would resume.
The 83 Maryland plaintiffs include scientists, researchers, and professionals who alleged the indefinite pause caused irreparable harm to their careers, businesses, and families. All but three are citizens of Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Syria, or Venezuela, or are married to citizens of those countries. Judge Russell found they were likely to succeed on the merits, ruled that the USCIS policy memorandum constitutes a “final agency action” subject to court review, and found no evidence in the record that any of the applicants posed a threat to national security. He wrote: “Many Plaintiffs have contributed significantly to scientific and medical research that serves the interests of the U.S. and its citizens.”
What this means for you: If you are from one of the 39 designated countries and have a pending green card application, your application may be subject to this same indefinite hold. The Maryland injunction applies only to those 83 plaintiffs, but the legal reasoning is being cited in other courts. If your application has gone silent or you are experiencing unexplained delays, contact our office. There may be legal options available to you.
3- Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump’s Asylum Ban at the Border Is Illegal
On April 24, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that President Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access at the southern border is illegal. The court found that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives people the right to apply for asylum at the border, and the president cannot override that by executive order. The order stems from Trump’s Inauguration Day 2025 proclamation declaring a border “invasion” and suspending migrants’ ability to seek asylum. The panel concluded that no such presidential authority exists under existing immigration law.
The ruling is a significant legal victory, but it is not final. The administration is expected to appeal, and the Supreme Court may ultimately decide the question.
4- Second Circuit and ACLU Win: Immigrants Cannot Be Jailed Without a Bond Hearing
On April 28, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy, ruling that immigrants in removal proceedings cannot be jailed without the opportunity to seek bond. The case was brought by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the Law Office of Paul O’Dwyer on behalf of Ricardo Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian man who has lived in the United States for over 20 years, owns a home and a business, and has had a pending application for legal status since 2016. In September 2025, DHS detained him under the no-bond policy. An immigration judge found he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community and ordered his release. The Second Circuit affirmed that decision.
The Trump administration’s policy, put in place in July 2025, required mandatory detention without bond hearings for anyone who entered the U.S. without inspection, regardless of how long they have lived here, their family ties, or their pending legal status. The Second Circuit called it the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in the nation’s history and found it raised “serious constitutional questions.” The ruling creates a direct split with the 5th and 8th Circuits, making Supreme Court review likely.
