The Department of Homeland Security issued a memo on February 18, 2026, directing federal immigration agents to arrest and detain refugees living legally in the United States who have not obtained green cards within one year of their arrival. Authored by USCIS Director Joseph Edlow and ICE acting Director Todd Lyons, the directive represents a dramatic departure from longstanding immigration policy, under which failure to obtain a green card after one year was never treated as grounds for detention or removal. Advocates estimate that roughly 100,000 refugees admitted during the Biden administration could be swept up under this new enforcement posture — people who entered the country through legal channels, passed security screenings, and built lives in American communities.
The policy has already been tested in Minnesota, where USCIS launched an investigation in January into 5,600 refugees who had not yet received green cards, referring cases directly to ICE. The resulting enforcement operation led to warrantless arrests of lawfully admitted refugees, prompting immediate legal challenges. A federal judge has since blocked the government’s actions and ordered detained refugees released, calling the policy a transformation of the “American Dream into a dystopian nightmare.” This article breaks down what the DHS memo actually says, the scope of Operation PARRIS, how the courts have responded, and what affected refugees should know about their rights going forward.
Table of Contents
- What Does the DHS Memo Directing Agents to Detain Refugees Actually Say?
- How Many Refugees Could Face Detention Under This Policy?
- What Is Operation PARRIS and What Did It Find?
- How Have Courts Responded to the Refugee Detention Policy?
- What Are the Constitutional Problems With Detaining Lawfully Admitted Refugees?
- How Does This Affect Refugees Waiting on USCIS Green Card Processing?
- What Comes Next for Refugee Detention Policy?
- Conclusion
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Does the DHS Memo Directing Agents to Detain Refugees Actually Say?
The February 2026 memo instructs federal agencies to “detain and inspect” refugees who have not voluntarily returned to DHS custody for examination at the one-year mark of living in the United States. Under existing immigration law, refugees are expected to apply for adjustment of status — the process of obtaining a green card — after being in the country for one year. But for decades, the failure to meet that timeline was handled administratively. It was not treated as a criminal matter, and it certainly was not grounds for sending ICE agents to someone’s door. Under previous policy, if a refugee was arrested, DHS was required to either release them within 48 hours or initiate formal removal proceedings — a high procedural bar that served as a check against arbitrary detention. The new memo effectively strips away that distinction.
By reframing the one-year green card requirement as an enforcement trigger rather than an administrative benchmark, the directive gives ICE broad authority to target a population that has been living in the country with legal authorization. It is worth noting that many refugees experience significant delays in obtaining green cards through no fault of their own — USCIS processing backlogs, lost paperwork, and bureaucratic bottlenecks are well-documented problems that predate any single administration. The memo makes no allowance for these realities. This matters because the practical effect is to treat lawfully admitted refugees the same way the government treats people who crossed the border without authorization. A refugee from Somalia who arrived through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, passed extensive background checks, and has been waiting eighteen months for USCIS to process her green card application now faces the same enforcement apparatus as someone who entered the country without inspection. That collapse of legal categories is what has alarmed immigration attorneys across the country.
How Many Refugees Could Face Detention Under This Policy?
Over 200,000 refugees entered the United States during the Biden administration. Of that total, advocates estimate approximately 100,000 have not yet received green cards — a number that reflects the scale of USCIS processing delays as much as anything else. These are not people who have been hiding from the government. They registered with immigration authorities upon arrival, provided biometric data, and in many cases have been checking in regularly while waiting for their applications to move through the system. The first enforcement action under the new policy targeted Minnesota, home to one of the largest refugee populations in the country.
In January, USCIS began investigating 5,600 refugees in the state who had not yet obtained green cards, and started referring those cases to ICE. However, the scope of the memo extends far beyond a single state. If applied nationally, the directive could affect refugees in every major resettlement city — from Houston to San Diego to Columbus, Ohio. The key limitation to understand is that the memo does not distinguish between a refugee who never filed for a green card and one whose application has been pending for months at USCIS. Both are treated identically under the directive, which immigration attorneys argue is legally and practically indefensible.
What Is Operation PARRIS and What Did It Find?
DHS launched Operation PARRIS — Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening — as a companion initiative to the detention memo. The operation’s stated purpose was to re-screen refugees for potential immigration fraud, essentially reopening the vetting process for people who had already been admitted to the country. A USCIS review conducted under Operation PARRIS examined 31,000 refugees from Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Venezuela who were admitted between 2021 and 2024. The administration cited the results to justify its aggressive posture: according to the review, 10 percent of the refugees examined had “evidence of public safety risks,” including alleged gang membership, and 42 percent were deemed “insufficiently vetted” in their initial admission. These numbers deserve scrutiny. The category of “insufficiently vetted” is not a legal standard — it is an administrative judgment made after the fact by officials operating under a directive to find problems.
It does not mean those refugees committed fraud or posed any actual threat. Similarly, “evidence of public safety risks” is a broad label that can encompass everything from an unverified tip to a social media post. The administration has not disclosed the specific criteria used to reach these conclusions. For the refugees swept up in Minnesota, the consequences were immediate and concrete. ICE agents conducted warrantless arrests, detained people in facilities far from their homes and families, and provided little information about the legal basis for the detentions. Several detainees reported being told they were being “re-examined” but were given no access to attorneys or formal notice of the charges against them — a process that multiple legal experts described as bearing no resemblance to any recognized procedure under immigration law.
How Have Courts Responded to the Refugee Detention Policy?
The legal response came quickly and forcefully. U.S. District Judge John Tunheim, based in Minnesota, blocked the government from targeting refugees in the state after finding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claims that the arrests and detention were unlawful. His initial order halted further enforcement actions under Operation PARRIS against Minnesota refugees and signaled serious constitutional concerns with the entire framework. On February 28, 2026, Judge Tunheim extended his protective order in a 66-page ruling that left little ambiguity about the court’s view.
He found that the government’s warrantless arrest and detention of lawfully present refugees likely violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. The court ordered that detainees still in custody from Operation PARRIS be released and returned to Minnesota. In language rarely seen in federal immigration rulings, Judge Tunheim wrote that the policy turns refugees’ “American Dream into a dystopian nightmare.” The tradeoff the administration now faces is significant. It can appeal Judge Tunheim’s ruling and risk having a higher court establish binding precedent that limits executive authority over refugees, or it can attempt to narrow and rework the policy to survive judicial scrutiny — a process that would take months and likely produce a far more limited directive than the one originally issued. Either path constrains the government’s ability to pursue mass detention of lawfully admitted refugees, at least in the near term.
What Are the Constitutional Problems With Detaining Lawfully Admitted Refugees?
The legal vulnerabilities in the DHS memo are substantial and cut across multiple areas of constitutional law. The Fourth Amendment requires the government to have probable cause and, in most circumstances, a warrant before arresting someone. Refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program are present in the country lawfully — they are not suspected of a crime, and the failure to obtain a green card within a specific timeframe has never been treated as a criminal offense. Conducting warrantless arrests of people in this situation is a significant departure from established Fourth Amendment doctrine. The Fifth Amendment issues are equally serious.
Due process requires that the government provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before depriving someone of liberty. Refugees detained under Operation PARRIS reported receiving no formal notice of the legal basis for their detention, no access to counsel, and no meaningful opportunity to challenge their arrest. The DHS memo effectively created a system of administrative detention that bypasses the procedural safeguards built into both immigration law and the Constitution. A critical warning for anyone following this issue: the court’s ruling currently applies only to Minnesota. Refugees in other states do not yet have the protection of Judge Tunheim’s order. While other legal challenges are likely, the geographic limitation means that the DHS memo could theoretically still be enforced elsewhere while litigation proceeds. Refugees outside Minnesota who have not yet obtained green cards should seek legal counsel immediately, regardless of their individual circumstances.
How Does This Affect Refugees Waiting on USCIS Green Card Processing?
The cruel irony of the policy is that USCIS itself is responsible for the processing delays that have left thousands of refugees without green cards. The agency’s backlog has been a persistent problem for years, with average processing times for refugee adjustment of status applications frequently exceeding twelve months. A refugee who filed her green card application the day she became eligible might still be waiting two years later — not because she failed to comply with the law, but because USCIS failed to act on her case.
Under the DHS memo, that same refugee could now be arrested by ICE for the government’s own delay. This is not a hypothetical scenario. Among the 5,600 refugees investigated in Minnesota, legal aid organizations reported that many had pending green card applications with USCIS and had been fully compliant with every step of the process. They were detained not for anything they did or failed to do, but because the system designed to process their applications had not moved fast enough.
What Comes Next for Refugee Detention Policy?
The near-term outlook depends heavily on whether the administration appeals Judge Tunheim’s ruling and how other federal courts respond to similar challenges that are expected to be filed across the country. If multiple courts reach the same conclusion — that the memo violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Constitution — the administration will face increasing pressure to abandon or substantially revise the policy. If courts split, the issue could eventually reach the Supreme Court, which would establish a nationwide standard for how the government may treat lawfully admitted refugees.
Regardless of how the litigation plays out, the DHS memo has already reshaped the landscape for refugee resettlement in the United States. Resettlement agencies report that refugees are afraid to interact with government agencies, including appearing for scheduled appointments with USCIS — the very appointments that would move their green card applications forward. The chilling effect may ultimately slow the processing that the government claims to be enforcing, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of noncompliance and enforcement. For the 100,000 refugees who have not yet obtained green cards, the months ahead will be defined by uncertainty, legal battles, and the question of whether the courts can hold the line on protections that were, until recently, taken for granted.
Conclusion
The DHS memo directing federal agents to detain refugees without valid green cards represents one of the most aggressive expansions of immigration enforcement authority in recent memory. By targeting a population that entered the country through legal channels and has been living in the United States with government authorization, the policy collapses the distinction between lawful and unlawful presence that has been central to American immigration law for decades. The numbers are staggering — up to 100,000 refugees potentially affected, with thousands already investigated in Minnesota alone — and the constitutional problems are serious enough that a federal judge blocked the policy in forceful terms.
For refugees who have not yet obtained green cards, the most important step right now is to consult with an immigration attorney or a legal aid organization that specializes in refugee cases. Organizations like the International Refugee Assistance Project and Global Refuge have been actively litigating these issues and can provide guidance. Judge Tunheim’s ruling is a significant win, but it is not a permanent resolution, and it does not protect refugees outside of Minnesota. The legal fight is far from over, and the outcome will determine whether the United States continues to honor the commitments it made to some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can refugees be deported for not having a green card after one year?
Under longstanding immigration law, failure to obtain a green card after one year was not grounds for deportation. The DHS memo attempts to change that enforcement posture, but a federal judge has blocked the policy, finding it likely violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Constitution. The legal question is not yet fully resolved.
Does Judge Tunheim’s ruling protect all refugees nationwide?
No. The ruling currently applies only to refugees in Minnesota. Refugees in other states are not covered by this specific protective order, although similar legal challenges are expected in other jurisdictions. Refugees outside Minnesota should seek legal counsel as soon as possible.
What is Operation PARRIS?
Operation PARRIS stands for Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening. It is a DHS initiative that re-screens previously admitted refugees for potential immigration fraud. A review under the operation examined 31,000 refugees from five countries and produced statistics the administration used to justify its detention policy.
What should a refugee do if ICE contacts them?
Any refugee contacted by ICE should exercise their right to remain silent, ask whether they are free to leave, and contact an immigration attorney immediately. They should not sign any documents without legal counsel present. Organizations like the International Refugee Assistance Project can provide emergency legal assistance.
Are refugees with pending green card applications also at risk?
Yes. The DHS memo does not distinguish between refugees who never applied for a green card and those who have applications pending with USCIS. Legal aid organizations in Minnesota reported that many detained refugees had active, pending applications and had been fully compliant with the process.