Court Order Regarding Trump Refugee Resettlement Cancellations

July 16, 2025.

Pacito, refugee ban, case

This order of Court (see PDF, below) concerns refugees who had been approved for resettlement in the United States and were preparing to travel when their cases were suspended on or about January 20, 2025, when the Government implemented Executive Order 14163, “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program” (“USRAP EO”).

Many had already packed their belongings, given up their homes, and said goodbye

to their communities in reliance on the Government’s assurance that they would

soon be safe in the United States of America.

IN SUM:

Highlights:

• The judge appointed Magistrate Judge Michelle Peterson rather than a special neutral to assist with the case-by-case determination;

• In addition to the 160, a rebuttable presumption will apply to UACs, and Afghans at CAS

• The travel ban does not apply to refugees and refugees from travel-ban designated countries must be assessed for reliance interests;

• Individuals with travel booked prior to Jan 20 (but after Dec 1) for reasons unrelated to the refugee suspension, will be included in the reliance interests review.

  
  
  
  

  

  
  

ECF 145_July 14 Order.pdf

Download PDF • 246KB

EXPLAINER: Courtesy Refugee Council USA

Pacito v. Trump District Court Order July 14, 2025

SHORTLINK: https://tinyurl.com/PacitoExplainerJuly2025 

On July 14, 2025, Judge Jamal Whitehead issued an order that establishes a process to review, on a case by case basis, whether thousands of additional refugees have a strong “reliance interest” and should also be resettled in the U.S. while the Pacito v. Trump case continues in court. The process will be overseen by Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson, who will issue recommendations if the government disputes cases deemed eligible for protection.

Judge Whitehead clarifies several important points in his order. First, he asserted that the travel ban does not apply to any injunction-protected refugees (including several who are ready to be resettled if not for being held up by the ban), citing in part the travel ban’s text itself which explicitly excludes refugees. Second, he confirmed the universe of “review-eligible” cases and that Plaintiff Pacito’s experience–having gotten rid of his possessions and his home when told his travel to the U.S. was canceled–defines the “reliance interest” standard. Third, the judge established a framework for reviewing cases and addressing disputes and established three categories of cases that should be “presumed” to meet the reliance interest standard barring rebuttal from the government. 

The ruling is a huge win for refugee resettlement and all those committed to welcome, but the details matter. The administration must be held accountable for actually following through on the order – especially considering it has just completed mass layoffs of key refugee-support staff that might slow down required processing. Read a more detailed overview of the new process below. 

What are the key elements to the court order?

1. The ruling appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson to assist with case-by-case determinations (under established procedures) for “injunction protection” (refugee cases eligible for potential resettlement).

   1. NOTE: The magistrate judge’s biography is available here.

2. Proclamation 10949 (the travel ban proclamation) does not excuse denial of relief to injunction-protected refugees, as the Proclamation excludes refugees from its scope.

   1. NOTE: The Government must immediately resume processing the 80 presumptively protected refugees it has denied based on the Proclamation (unless the Government intends to try to rebut the presumption), and must assess reliance interests for all review-eligible cases from designated countries.

3. Review-eligible refugee cases include refugees who, on or before January 20, 2025, had arranged and confirmable travel plans, and whose travel, at some point after December 1, 2024, was canceled and never re-booked.

   1. NOTE: Refugees whose travel was cancelled before January 20, 2025, may face an uphill battle in proving reliance interests comparable to Pacito, but those with cancellations at some point after December 1, 2024, deserve individualized assessment rather than categorical exclusion.

4. Injunction implementation framework includes (a) Government identifies universe of review-eligible cases (utilizing START), (b) rebuttable presumption cases –  160 refugees with imminent travel; unaccompanied minor children; Afghan refugees at Camp As Sayliyah, (c) the Government provides notification to all review-eligible cases, (d) Resettlement Support Centers facilitate documentation of reliance interests by administering surveys to review-eligible cases, (e) Plaintiffs review completed survey responses and select cases for Government determination, and (f) dispute resolution procedures.

   1. NOTE: The court contemplated two scenarios: (1) Government denials of reliance-interest claims; and (2) Government challenges to individual rebuttable-presumption cases.

5. The Government must follow court-established procedures if, due to feasibility concerns, the Government seeks judicial relief from the requirements in the order.

   1. NOTE: The parties must meet-and-confer, and either file a joint submission containing an alternative plan or identify their respective positions in a joint submission.

Which refugees are review-eligible? The order outlined the following universe of refugee cases as “review eligible” and will be considered as potentially meeting the standard of a strong reliance interest similar to Plaintiff Pacito:

• Had been conditionally approved for refugee status by USCIS

• Had “arranged and confirmable travel plans” to the U.S. that were cancelled at some point on or after December 1, 2024 and have not been re-booked

• The travel ban will not have an impact on which refugees are considered

The exact number of cases that fit this description remains uncertain, but Plaintiffs assert it could be “thousands more” than the 12,000 initially estimated by the administration. 

How will the case-by-case review work? The injunction implementation framework, summarized:

1. Within 7 days: The U.S. government must identify the universe of “review-eligible” cases and provide a list to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs can identify other cases they believe are review-eligible but were omitted by the government, and the parties must confer before seeking judicial intervention.

2. Within 7 days of identifying review-eligible cases: Notify these cases of the criteria and procedures for seeking individualized reliance assessments.

3. Throughout: Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs) will provide review-eligible cases with an opportunity to complete a standardized survey to document their specific reliance interests. Plaintiffs will determine which survey responses to submit to the government and submit them on a rolling basis. The government is required to review each response within 7 days.

   1. If a sufficient reliance interest is found, the government must “immediately process, admit, and resettle the case members.” 

   2. If the government disputes the case, Plaintiffs can file the survey and an explanation arguing how the case demonstrates sufficient reliance interest to Judge Peterson, who will issue a recommendation within 21 days.

In addition, the Court establishes a presumption of sufficient reliance interests for the following refugees who otherwise meet the “review-eligible” criteria (described in the case as “Rebuttable-Presumption Cases”):

• The 160 refugees cleared for admission and booked for travel within two weeks of January 20,

• Unaccompanied refugee minor children, and

• Afghan refugees at Camp As Sayliyah, who were required by the U.S. government to relocate there for their processing, travel, and admission to the U.S. 

The above three groups automatically become injunction-protected cases if the government does not identify them for challenge within 14 days. The burden falls on the government to prove by clear evidence that a case lacks a reliance interest comparable to Pacito. Judge Peterson will issue a recommendation within 21 days following a challenge and Plaintiffs’ response.

What are the dispute-resolution procedures? The court contemplated two scenarios: (1) Government denials of reliance-interest claims; and (2) Government challenges to individual rebuttable-presumption cases.

• If the Government finds an insufficient reliance in a case submitted by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may file the survey response along with an optional brief of no more than six (6) pages arguing the case demonstrates sufficient reliance interests.

  • After Plaintiffs’ filing, the Government may file an optional response brief within four (4) days, not exceeding six (6) pages, explaining its reasoning for denial.

  • Judge Peterson will issue a Report and Recommendation (R&R) within twenty-one (21) days, summarizing key reliance facts and recommending whether the case satisfies the four-part criteria. If Judge Peterson finds survey responses inadequate, she may order Plaintiffs to obtain additional information through the RSCs.

  • Objections to any R&R should be filed no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R. Objections should be noted for consideration on this Court’s motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses, if any, to objections must be filed no later than the day before the noting date.

• Within fourteen (14) days of this order, the Government must identify all rebuttable-presumption cases it intends to challenge. Cases not timely challenged automatically become injunction-protected refugees.

  • For challenged cases, the Government has ten (10) days to file briefs not exceeding six (6) pages per case, providing an argument why the case lacks Pacito-comparable reliance interests. Plaintiffs must respond within five (5) days with briefs not exceeding six (6) pages per case. 

  • After this five-day response window has passed, Judge Peterson should issue R&Rs within twenty-one (21) days making factual findings about the applicant’s reliance interests and issuing a final recommendation to the Court as to whether the Government has met its burden to overcome the applicant’s presumptive reliance interests by clear evidence. 

  • If Judge Peterson determines that additional information is needed to assess reliance interests, she may order the parties to obtain additional information from the applicant, through the RSCs, as necessary.

  • Objections to any R&R should be filed no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R. Objections should be noted for consideration on this Court’s motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses, if any, to objections must be filed no later than the day before the noting date.

  • The Court will make a final determination about whether the case is eligible for injunctive protection. If the Government prevails in rebutting the presumption of protection, the case does not lose its Review-Eligible status; in any such case, Plaintiffs may still attempt to prove that the case has a sufficient reliance interest to merit injunctive protection.