Applicants and beneficiaries of the Central American Minors (CAM) parole program filed this class-action lawsuit on June 13, 2018, challenging the Trump Administration's termination of the program and its revocation of parole for nearly 3,000 children. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as that the defendants be equitably estopped, the plaintiffs alleged that the termination of the program violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security, and Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection. The plaintiffs were represented by the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) and the law firm Arnold & Porter LLP. The plaintiffs filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.

Established in 2014, the Departments of State (DOS) and Homeland Security (DHS) set up CAM as a dual refugee/parole program in response to the dramatic rise in the number of unaccompanied children from the so-called “Northern Triangle” countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The CAM program allowed children from these countries who had at least one parent living lawfully in the U.S. to apply for refugee resettlement or parole while still in their home countries; in the two and a half years it was in operation, the program enabled at least 3,000 people to emigrate to the U.S. However, within a few days of President Trump’s inauguration and without any public announcement, the CAM program stopped processing applications, even those which had already been submitted. On August 16, 2017, DHS formally announced that the CAM program would be terminated and that conditional parole for all CAM beneficiaries who had not yet traveled to the United States would be rescinded.

On July 12, 2018, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction which would prevent the government from terminating the CAM program and restore the conditional parole approvals that had been rescinded in August 2017, arguing that the continued separation of children from their parents was causing them irreparable harm.

On December 10, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion to dismiss. 363 F. Supp 3d 1048. Judge Beeler denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' APA claims, finding the government’s mass revocation of conditional parole approval to be unlawful. The judge dismissed all other claims. On the same day, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer about the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion from July.

On March 1, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. 2019 WL 990680. While Judge Beeler denied the motion to enjoin DHS from terminating the CAM program going forward, the Judge ordered the government to resume processing for the approximately 2,700 children who had already received conditional approval. The government was also prohibited from enacting any policy, procedure, or practice to not process the beneficiaries or to put their processing on hold en masse.

On April 12, 2019, the parties entered into a binding memorandum of understanding. The settlement agreement converts the court’s order into a permanent injunction, over which the court retains jurisdiction to enforce. The agreement requires the government to finish processing those applicants whose applications were in their final stages when the government terminated the CAM program.

On May 17, 2019, the final judgment and order for permanent injunction were filed by the court which finalized the agreement between the two parties. DHS was enjoined from rescinding conditional approvals for the 2,700 individuals who had been approved for parole. Additionally, DHS was ordered to complete the post-conditional approval processing for those 2,700 individuals under the policies that had been in place before January 2017. Finally, DHS was enjoined from adopting any policy or practice that would bar it from processing the 2,700 individuals or putting their processing on hold en masse.

On October 1, 2019, the defendants filed their first status update, which is required of them every three months until the processing is complete. They reported that most of the specific processing items required of them were still in process, but all items, if not completed already, were expected to be completed by the end of October 2019.

The defendants filed additional status reports on December 27, 2019, and March 31, 2020. The case is ongoing.

Alexander Walling - 07/31/2018
Raul Noguera-McElroy - 04/12/2019
Alexandra Gilewicz - 04/15/2019
Christiana Johnson - 10/11/2019
Sam Kulhanek - 04/25/2020


compress summary