Los Angeles Judge Critical of ICE Deporting Survivors of Crimes

ICE’s detention and deportation of noncitizens who have experienced or witnessed violent crimes appears to contradict US lawmakers’ intent behind legal protections for immigrant survivors, a Los Angeles federal judge said in a Tuesday hearing.

Federal law allows for protection from deportations and a pathway to visas for those who report crimes such as domestic violence and human trafficking, in part to encourage victims and witnesses to cooperate with law enforcement without worrying about consequences related to their legal status, Judge Andre Birotte Jr. of the US District Court for the Central District of California said.

“It sounds like you’re saying that’s no longer important,” Birotte said to special assistant US attorney Pushkal Mishra, representing the federal government.

Though the pathway to a visa still exists, the government has begun in some cases initiating deportation proceedings while these visa applications are pending. Prior to deporting these noncitizens, the government is refusing to check with US Citizenship & Immigration Services, which processes the applications, to see if an applicant is likely to be approved, the lawsuit alleges. The situation is setting up a “morbid kind of race between ICE and USCIS,” said Bardis Vakili of the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law, representing the plaintiffs.

“What is ICE’s reason for the change in the policy?” Birotte asked, adding, “It didn’t seem like there was a lot of meat to it.”

Birotte is considering a request for a preliminary injunction and class certification in a case brought in October by a group of immigrant survivors of crimes.

Deferred Action

ICE issued guidance in early 2025 allowing for the routine detention and deportation of noncitizens even if they’ve reported a crime or are serving as a witness, the lawsuit said. But many of these people have lawful status to stay in the country for a period of time under what’s known as a deferred action policy, according to the complaint, which accuses the federal government of essentially revoking this status.

The lawsuit asks the court to issue orders providing for the return of named plaintiffs who have been deported, to stop ICE from revoking deferred action status without an opportunity to be heard, and to block the “blind removal” of survivors with pending visa applications without checking if they’re likely to be approved.

Mishra said that unlike programs such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which delays deportation for people brought to the US as kids, the protections afforded by deferred action status for crime survivors have always allowed for “a lower priority of enforcement but enforcement could still happen.”

Applications for U or T visas will still be processed if applicants are deported, and they will have a pathway to return if the applications are approved, Mishra said.

Birotte asked Mishra if the court should “ignore any practical impact” of changing the scope of protections for crime survivors.

Immigrants are agreeing to assist law enforcement with criminal investigations under the assurance that they won’t face adverse consequences related to their immigration status—"and one day, nope?” he said.

Birotte pressed the parties on the scope of relief. He said he didn’t want to be a “lowly judge in Los Angeles thinking he rules the world” and would tailor any order to ensure it doesn’t counter the US Supreme Court’s recent bar on nationwide injunctions.

The case is Immigration Center for Women and Children v. Noem, C.D. Cal., No. 2:25-cv-09848, 2/10/26.