The Legal Landscape

Issue 4 / Published October 20, 2026

IN THIS ISSUE

Due Process Risks for Refugees

Stripping Back the Temporary Protected Status Statute

INTERNATIONAL NEWS

On October 1, 2026, the European Court of Justice ruled that the Netherlands must adjudicate 140,000 asylum applications filed by Ukrainians who have temporary protection. The ruling states clearly that people who enjoy temporary protection in the European Union still have a right to have their asylum applications processed and adjudicated.

The Legal Landscape is a monthly Policy & Advocacy report that provides a deeper dive into legal topics so that you can understand the law as it changes. Against a shifting legal landscape, USCRI hopes these updates will be helpful to newcomers and communities who want reliable and timely information.

Due Process Risks for Refugees

Effective October 14, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security announced that refugees would be afforded only 10 days to respond to a Notice of Intent to Terminate refugee status. In the interim final rule, the Department cast doubt on the refugee admissions of the prior administration, yet evidence of widespread fraud or exploitation has not been provided.

Refugees who receive a Notice of Intent to Terminate may either respond in writing or request an interview. Failure to respond will lead to termination of refugee status and referral to immigration court for removal proceedings. Rather than guarantee proper service or require a response, silence is taken as admission.

The Refugee Convention, which the United States acceded to in 1968, requires due process before the removal of a refugee. Article 32 states that refugees must be afforded the right to present evidence, the right to appeal, and the right to legal assistance. According to international law, the United States is prohibited from deporting a refugee to a country where they would face persecution or torture.

U.S. caselaw on appeal rights after refugee status termination is developing. On October 5, 2026, in Mukantagara v. Noem , the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court finding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review an agency decision to terminate refugee status. The court noted that terminating refugee status requires a mandatory and nondiscretionary finding that an individual was not a refugee at the time of admission. A nondiscretionary finding is subject to judicial review and can be challenged in federal court. Currently, the opinion does not have precedential weight outside of the Tenth Circuit.

While due process rights are usually guaranteed by governments, termination of refugee status also throws into question what procedural protections a refugee will be guaranteed by the international system. Refugee resettlement is a global, coordinated effort between refugee host countries, other resettlement countries, and international organizations, including several United Nations organizations. Many refugees are first identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as individuals eligible for international protection under the Refugee Convention. Termination of refugee status by the Department would not automatically terminate an individual’s eligibility for international protection. Yet, the lack of clarity on what protections a refugee could rely on and what other safe options are available may test the current international system, at a time when funding support are at historic lows.

Stripping Back the Temporary Protected Status Statute

In January 2025, 17 countries were designated for Temporary Protected Status. Today, only four designations remain—three of which are in limbo. The expiry dates for El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine have passed without formal decisions on whether Temporary Protected Status will be extended, re-designated, or terminated. The future of Temporary Protected Status is uncharted, and the past 21 months have highlighted the weaknesses of the original statute.

In 1990, Congress created Temporary Protected Status to close a gap in U.S. law regarding humanitarian protections for individuals who are already in the United States facing dangerous conditions if forced to return to their home country. Asylum protection, enacted by the Refugee Act of 1980, is afforded to individuals who fear persecution. Because exposure to conflict, environmental disaster, and other dangerous conditions does not always rise to the level of individual persecution, the executive branch offered safe haven through Extended Voluntary Departure. This tool was used ad hoc to grant temporary protection to nationals from 16 countries, including Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

Disapproval of the discretionary nature of Extended Voluntary Departure came to a head when the executive branch refused to grant protections to nationals of El Salvador after civil war broke out in 1980 between U.S.-backed government forces and guerilla groups. In 1990, Congress passed the Immigration Act, formalizing Temporary Protected Status and designating El Salvador. Congress formalized the process to move away from the ad hoc approach. Yet in doing so, Congress never fixed the problem it had with Extended Voluntary Departure in the first place: the discretionary nature of it.

This year, in Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court further cemented the discretionary nature of Temporary Protected Status by eliminating the possibility of judicial review, absent allegations of constitutional rights violations. As a result, Congress is introducing bills that would require the executive branch to designate countries for Temporary Protected Status, like it did with El Salvador in 1990. Over three decades later, the question of which nationals should be afforded temporary protection and who gets to decide is back to where it started. While the government may and should resolve the question, the harms to individuals who have lost their status, jobs, homes, and family unity cannot be undone and should not be forgotten.