Department of Justice files Boston court documents seeking termination of CBP One legal status

The Department of Justice has filed court documents in Boston outlining a plan to terminate the temporary legal status of approximately 900,000 individuals who entered the United States via the CBP One app during the Biden era. These filings detail an administrative move to end what was granted as humanitarian parole, a status that allowed recipients to remain in the country while their asylum claims were adjudicated.

This new filing follows a 2024 ruling by Federal Judge Allison Burroughs, which declared the administration's initial attempt to terminate these statuses unlawful due to procedural failures. While the Department of Justice asserts in the new documents that it is complying with Judge Burroughs' order, legal representatives for the affected group contend that the action represents a deliberate attempt to evade compliance with the court's previous decision.

The administration's strategy relies on a non-public memo from CBP head Rodney Scott, which asserts that humanitarian parole is no longer appropriate for these individuals. Under the current administration, the original CBP One app was dissolved and relaunched as "CBP Home," a tool critics describe as a mechanism for self-deportation, reflecting a broader policy shift away from the preliminary vetting and temporary status granted under President Joe Biden.

Lawyers representing the individuals, including those from Democracy Forward and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, have urged Judge Burroughs to block the new termination notices. They argue that issuing new parole termination notices based on an internal memo does not address the procedural deficiencies identified in the earlier ruling and seeks to bypass the legal framework established by the court.

The context of this legal battle is set against a backdrop of conflicting judicial outcomes regarding border policy. Separately, a federal appeals court recently ruled against the administration's broader ban on asylum at the southern border, a decision the administration is expected to appeal. This recent ruling stands in contrast to the administration's claim of a national emergency at the border, which has been used to justify bypassing standard legal requirements for asylum processing.

The administration's hardline immigration approach has sought to staunch nearly all asylum claims, yet the right to seek asylum remains enshrined in both domestic and international law. As the legal proceedings continue in Boston, the outcome will determine whether the temporary protections for nearly a million people can be maintained or if the administration's internal policy shifts will prevail in the face of judicial scrutiny.