Case Explained: ALYSE SANCHEZ; ELMER ONAN SANCHEZ HERNANDEZ; AMIRA ABBAS ABDALLA; JEAN CLAUDE EYEGHE-NANA; THERESA RODRIGUEZ PENA; MISAEL RODRIGUEZ PENA; OLIVIA ALDANA MARTINEZ; JOSE CARLOS ALDANA MARTINEZ; TATYANA MURITHI; MWITI MURITHI; BIBIANA NDULA; ERIC NDULA Plaintiffs – v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; CALEB VITELLO, Acting Director, Immigration & Customs Enforcement; MATTHEW ELLISTON, Director, Maryland Field Office of ICE Enforcement & Removal Operations Defendants – Appellants —————————— IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE Amicus Supporting

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment to noncitizen plaintiffs who alleged that the government lacked legal authority to arrest or remove them while they were pursuing provisional unlawful presence waivers under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). The court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief on the current record because the regulatory framework governing provisional waivers does not operate as a statutory “shield” against removal, and the factual record is insufficient to support their alternative theory that the government used the waiver program as a “sword” to lure noncitizens for arrest. The court’s decision rests on two primary legal grounds. First, regarding the plaintiffs’ claim that the regulations prohibit enforcement during the waiver process, the court found that 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(2)(i) explicitly states that a pending or approved provisional waiver does not constitute a grant of lawful status or authorized stay, and the preamble to the 2013 Rule warned that filing an application does not protect against removal. The court further noted that intervening precedent in *Lovo v. Miller*, 107 F.4th 199 (4th Cir. 2024), established that USCIS has no legal obligation to adjudicate these applications, meaning plaintiffs have no protected liberty or property interest in access to the process sufficient to trigger Due Process protections against removal. Second, regarding the plaintiffs’ claim that the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Due Process by using the waiver program as a “trap” to identify noncitizens for removal, the court ruled that the record, which was developed without any fact discovery, contained only allegations that noncitizens were arrested at USCIS interviews. The court concluded this sparse evidence did not demonstrate that the arrests were motivated by the plaintiffs’ pursuit of waivers rather than by a pre-existing decision to execute removal orders once the individuals could be located. As a practical consequence, the district court’s permanent injunction prohibiting the government from arresting or removing the plaintiffs is dissolved. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, allowing the parties to conduct discovery and develop a factual record sufficient to determine whether the government’s enforcement actions were motivated by an intent to target noncitizens seeking provisional waivers. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.