ICWC v. Noem Restores Temporary Protections for Survivors With Pending U, T or VAWA Cases

For eight years, Yessenia Ruano worked as a teacher's aide in Wisconsin and reported to ICE at every required check-in. She was raising ten-year-old twin daughters who are U.S. citizens. According to a federal court's summary of her declaration, Ruano had survived human trafficking and filed a T visa petition in February 2025. That same month, an ICE officer gave her a warning to leave the country.

Ruano's lawyer asked ICE twice to pause her removal while USCIS reviewed the petition. The court said ICE denied both requests without first asking USCIS whether her case appeared eligible for T visa protection. Ruano said an officer warned that agents would find her if she did not leave and would separate her from her daughters. She later explained that she “could not face being taken away from my kids.” In June 2025, she left for El Salvador with the twins, who had never been there and struggled with the move, according to her declaration.

Her experience became part of Immigration Center for Women and Children v. Noem, a lawsuit brought by eight immigrant survivors and four organizations that serve them. On May 20, 2026, U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. issued a 97-page order temporarily pausing the ICE policies challenged in the case. He also ordered the government not to prevent Ruano and two other plaintiffs from returning to the United States in the same immigration status they had before they left or were removed.

The ruling reaches beyond the named plaintiffs. The judge created three nationwide groups, known in court as classes, for people with pending U visa, T visa or Violence Against Women Act cases who meet specific conditions. The protection is preliminary while the lawsuit continues. It does not mean that every pending petition prevents ICE from taking action.

What the order changes

The case grew from an ICE policy issued on January 30, 2025. That policy withdrew earlier guidance from 2021 and 2011 that told officers to take a victim-centered approach. Under the earlier guidance, being a victim of crime generally counted in a person's favor when ICE decided whether to arrest, detain or remove that person. The plaintiffs argued that the change broke protections they had relied on after reporting violence or trafficking and cooperating with authorities. The federal government defended its enforcement authority and has appealed the May order.

Kenia J. Merlos's experience shows the difference between a pending petition and the temporary protection known as deferred action. The court's summary says Merlos and her husband were held at gunpoint in 2023 and reported the crime. USCIS later found her U visa petition bona fide, granted her deferred action and issued a work permit. Even so, federal agents arrested her and her children during a family gathering near the Canadian border. She spent about three and a half months in ICE detention, and her husband was deported while she was held, according to the record.

Deferred action is a decision by USCIS to postpone immigration enforcement for a set period. It does not mean that USCIS approved the U visa. The court nevertheless found that ICE cannot treat valid U- or T-based deferred action as if it had disappeared. For the covered group, ICE cannot detain or remove a person without the required notice and a chance to respond about a possible revocation.

The order also addresses people like Ruano who have a final removal order and ask ICE to pause removal while a U or T petition is pending. Before ICE decides that request, USCIS must first make an initial assessment of whether the petition appears eligible. The lawyers for the classes say a bona fide determination should satisfy that initial step. For a U visa petitioner, that determination still does not guarantee that ICE will grant the stay or that USCIS will approve the petition.

How the toolkit can help

The practice advisory and toolkit are designed to help people turn the court's order into something they can present to ICE or a judge. The package includes letters for ICE check-ins, requests asking ICE to use its discretion, a request to pause removal, a request for release from immigration detention, and habeas corpus templates for certain detained U and T petitioners with deferred action. Separate versions address people with and without deferred action.

The documents are starting points. A letter for someone with a pending petition makes a different legal argument from one for a person who already has deferred action. A stay request matters only when there is a final removal order, and the court's class definition includes additional conditions. Using the wrong template or leaving out a key fact could fail to show why the order applies.

The class lawyers ask attorneys who see possible violations to contact the litigation team at [email protected]. They also warn that the government may not apply the ruling consistently without pressure in individual cases. The federal government appealed in June. A public Ninth Circuit docket confirms that appeal No. 26-3961 opened on June 22, but the page available during reporting had not been updated since that day.

The May order gives Ruano and the other named plaintiffs a legal path back, and it gives other survivors a way to identify protections that ICE must consider. Public sources reviewed for this article do not say whether Ruano and her daughters have returned to their Wisconsin school, community and home. A later ruling could also change the order. Individual circumstances differ, and a licensed immigration attorney or DOJ-accredited representative can provide advice about a particular case.