ICE Law Enforcement Series (8): If a Citizen Spouse is Facing Deportation Orders, They May Find Relief in the New England Region

In early this year on January 16th, the federal court in Massachusetts quietly approved a class-action settlement known as the “Calderon Jimenez v. Mayorkas” case. This judgement may have significant implications for families where one party is a US citizen and the other is an undocumented immigrant. Legal experts even believe that the solution to the current dilemma for such families could be relocating to the New England region of the United States within 2 years.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in 2016, Lilian Calderon, a Guatemalan woman who arrived in the US at the age of 3, along with her American citizen husband, was detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when they went to an immigration office near their home in Rhode Island. She was held in a detention center in Boston for nearly a month, with ICE planning to deport her, separating her from her husband and two young children.

ACLU intervened and Calderon was released. In 2018, she and 9 others, including two Chinese individuals in similar situations, represented by ACLU lawyers, sued the then Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, alleging violations of immigration and nationality laws, infringement of rights granted by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution’s due process clause, violation of equal protection clause based on race and nationality, and arbitrary and capricious behavior by the defendant under the Administrative Procedure Act.

On January 16, 2025, the federal judge ruled on the case, leading to a settlement between the two parties. The judgement serves as a “pardon” for families where one is a US citizen and the other is under a deportation order. The main plaintiff in the case, Calderon, has now been granted citizenship. Given the current stringent enforcement on illegal immigration under the Trump administration, this decision holds even greater significance for undocumented immigrants seeking legal status within their families.

According to the interpretation by the New York law firm, individuals meeting the conditions under the settlement agreement of the aforementioned case may be eligible to reopen deportation order cancellation proceedings, thereby having the opportunity to adjust their status. These conditions include having one spouse as a US citizen and the other as a non-citizen with a final deportation order (the citizen has not left the US) and the citizen spouse having submitted an I-130 “Petition for Alien Relative” for the non-citizen spouse, which is either in process or already approved.

Please note that the scope of the settlement only applies to 6 states in the New England region, namely Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, with a 2-year validity period from January 16, 2025, to January 16, 2027. During this period, within these 6 states, ICE cannot take enforcement actions against individuals meeting the aforementioned conditions unless the person commits a crime or is deemed a threat to public safety.

In simpler terms, for undocumented immigrants with final deportation orders residing in the 6 states mentioned, marrying a US citizen within those states or having submitted an I-130 family reunion application, potentially along with a 601A waiver in case of illegal entry, could offer a pathway to lawful status.

Manager Wang stated, “In other words, undocumented immigrants meeting these conditions entering these 6 states have no risk of deportation or arrest by ICE within 2 years. However, the caveat is that these undocumented immigrants have no criminal record.”

Manager Wang believes that this judgement could be helpful for families in the aforementioned situations who are unsure of what to do. He emphasized the need for swift action and noted the relatively low sensitivity among the Chinese community toward this news. He described the settlement agreement as a significant development akin to a “quasi-amnesty.”