Nearly 351 foreign students have filed a second-amended class action lawsuit, which contests the most recent memo from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) regarding SEVIS termination in addition to the unlawful SEVIS terminations and visa revocations.
As described by TOI in its May 1 edition, as per the new memo, the US Department of State’s ( DSS) revocations of student visas that are not subject to court challenges can serve as grounds for terminating an international student’s” Standard and Exchange Visitor Information System” ( SEVIS ) record.
Even read: Reinstated foreign students at risk once more after new ICE note on SEVIS pregnancies.
F-1 card recipients ( international students pursuing academic studies ) are generally permitted to stay in the US for the period of their educational program as well as an additional 60-day grace period. However, this grace period does not apply if a person’s SEVIS document is terminated, which could result in a student losing their legal status and having to leave the US right away.
According to the letter, a student’s F-1 visa would be voided if their SEVIS visa was voided, leaving them in a vulnerable situation. According to the lawsuit complaint,” A visa revocation should not legally affect a student’s immigration status in the US, but ICE will treat it in a way that constructively terminates that student’s status by preventing them from working, studying, and changing immigration statuses ( say from student visa to work visa ),” the lawsuit claims.
One of the attorneys in this case, Greg Siskind, had stated that” DOS may revoke a visa for phantom grounds without having a proper explanation of why revocation occurred.” The Trump Administration relies on the defense that no decision made by DOS can be remanded by a judge.
In addition to serving as ICE’s acting director and Secretary, DHS, Marco Rubio is alleged to be the first person to be sued in his capacity as Secretary of State ( DOS). ICE and DHS were the only defendants in earlier complaints.
The plaintiffs ( 351 international students who filed the lawsuit pseudonymously ) point out that the ICE-memo is a legislative rule that was unlawfully promulgated without following the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA )’s required notice-and-comment procedure. The plaintiffs claim that the memo reportedly introduced a new plan that allows the removal of SEVIS information in the event of a card withdrawal, which is incompatible with current laws and represents a significant change in ICE’s long-standing policy.
They contend that ICE, a division of the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS), unlawfully terminated the SEVIS records of between 4, 000 and 8, 000 US students. These terminations took place just weeks before significant educational goals like semester-end or graduation, and were carried out by automated techniques without proper constitutional authority or legal due process.
Under the appropriate regulations, which merely permit termination in three small and specific cases, such as the revocation of a previous waiver, the introduction of a personal bill for lasting residence, or a notification in a federal register identifying national security, diplomatic, or public safety, ICE lacked the authority to initiate such terminations. According to the rules, visa revocation is not one of the basis for SEVIS dismissal.
The plaintiffs contend that the memo unjustly expands ICE’s authority to cancel SEVIS data without taking into account whether students are meeting the requirements ‘ F-1 visa requirements or adhere to the regulations ‘ statutory bases for termination.
In addition, the lawsuit problem goes on to explain that in April 2025, after facing over 50 claims challenging the SEVIS pregnancies, ICE announced limited reactivations of SEVIS records, but specifically excluded students whose permits had been revoked by the DOS, despite the fact that many expulsions actually resulted from the SEVIS terminations themselves. On April 26, 2025, ICE released a new policy that attempted to justify SEVIS terminations based on visa revocations and asserted removability. This, according to the plaintiffs, constitutes unlawful and retroactive policy-making.
They contend that ICE and the DOS conspired to make these actions more severe, and that their conduct is in violation of federal law and constitutional law.
The students are represented by Impact Litigation firms ( Bless Litigation, Joseph and Hall, Kuck Baxter, and Siskind Susser ).
The international students are suing the district court for a number of significant actions, including halting what they claim are unlawful and harmful SEVIS terminations and/or visa revocations. They argue that the case should be viewed as a class action action on behalf of all the affected students whose SEVIS records were terminated after March 24, 2025, without any legal justification. SEVIS’s widespread termination should be viewed as unlawful and revoked. Students ‘ immigration status should be reinstated to its prior state, including restoring any current work authorizations and visas. International students who have experienced negative effects should be able to apply for work permits under the Optional Practical Training Program, even if they were prevented from doing so by the US agencies. Government databases should be cleared of any inaccurate or harmful information that might incorrectly classify students as criminals or immigrants who violate the law. Should be repealed the new ICE policy that only allows SEVIS records to be revoked on the basis of VISA revocations.
claims made in court:
First cause of action: The SEVIS terminations and visa revocations were arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful under the APA.
Second cause of action: The actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by depriving students of their rights without notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Third cause of action: ICE’s memo dated April 26, permitting SEVIS terminations based on visa revocations was an unlawfully promulgated legislative rule.
Fourth cause of action: The Secretary of State exceeded statutory authority by coordinating mass visa revocations, violating the Immigration and Nationality Act and the non-delegation doctrine.
