AI Generated Image (not documents from the case in this story)
A federal judge in Pennsylvania has refused to step into a fight over SIJ children deportation cases, ruling that the Immigration and Nationality Act keeps the court from reviewing a request by a group of children to halt their removal, Law360 reported Wednesday. The decision is a setback for young immigrants who hold, or are close to obtaining, Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification or trafficking-based protection, and who say immigration courts are ordering them deported before the green cards Congress set aside for them can arrive.
Law360’s case listing ties the ruling to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and names Jewish Family and Community Services of Pittsburgh (JFCS) and HIAS among the parties. JFCS brought L.B.R.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 2:26-cv-05346, in that court on July 29 with six young clients. The judge’s name, the exact statutory provision relied on and whether the dismissal leaves room to refile were not available in the publicly visible portion of the report.
What the children were asking the court to stop
The complaint describes six petitioners, ages 15 to 19, from Guatemala, Vietnam, Guinea and El Salvador. Four already had approved Form I-360 petitions for SIJ classification. One, a 17-year-old in custody, had a federal Office on Trafficking in Persons eligibility letter and a pending Form I-914 T visa application when an immigration judge denied a continuance and ordered her removed on July 16. Another had a dependency case pending in Allegheny County juvenile court when his request for more time was denied.
The suit, filed against DHS, USCIS, ICE, the Justice Department and the Executive Office for Immigration Review, targets two Board of Immigration Appeals precedents that grew out of DHS interlocutory appeals: Matter of Cahuec Tzalam, 29 I&N Dec. 300 (BIA 2025), on administrative closure, and Matter of Pinzon Rozo, 29 I&N Dec. 507 (BIA 2026), on continuances. It also alleges, on information and belief, unpublished EOIR policies that treat SIJ approval or prima facie eligibility as no longer good cause to pause a case. When the suit was filed, DHS told PublicSource that “all illegal aliens receive due process.”
The timing problem is built into the statute. SIJ beneficiaries adjust status through the EB-4 category, which receives 7.1 percent of the annual employment-based limit, roughly 9,940 visas a year when calculated from the statutory 140,000 minimum, and those numbers are shared with religious workers and other special immigrants. T visas for principals are capped at 5,000 a year under 8 U.S.C. 1184(o)(2). An approved I-360 gives a child a place in line, not a green card, so a removal order entered while the child waits can end the process. The complaint, citing ProPublica reporting, says immigration courts have been issuing more than 10,000 removal and voluntary departure orders against minors a month. That figure comes from the complaint’s source and has not been confirmed in EOIR’s published statistics.
Why jurisdiction was always the weak point
The complaint spent pages anticipating exactly this outcome. It argued that 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) covers only decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases or execute removal orders, and that the “zipper clause” in 1252(b)(9) does not reach claims “wholly collateral” to removal, relying on the Third Circuit’s 2020 decision in E.O.H.C. v. Secretary of Homeland Security. Law360’s account indicates the court found the INA’s review limits controlling. Under that framework, objections to how immigration judges handle continuances and closure are channeled into the removal case itself: an appeal to the BIA, then a petition for review in a federal court of appeals.
The practical effect is that each child must fight case by case, with appeal fees the complaint puts above $1,000, rather than through one systemwide challenge. That cuts the other way from the Oct. 30 nationwide order in Maryland that restored 21-day notice for children’s asylum interviews, a case aimed at a USCIS interview policy rather than immigration court procedure. The likeliest next step is an appeal to the Third Circuit, whose E.O.H.C. precedent will frame the argument. Meanwhile, the faster children’s dockets and the rescission of SIJ deferred action leave many of these young people with only the BIA appeal and its automatic stay as protection, as the board also narrows reopening for adjustment.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Sources
- Law360: Pa. Court Says INA Shields Removal Decisions From Review (Nov. 4, 2026)
- Complaint, L.B.R.P. v. DHS, No. 2:26-cv-05346 (E.D. Pa., filed July 29, 2026)
- PublicSource: Pittsburgh nonprofit sues Trump administration (July 31, 2026)
- 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(4), EB-4 special immigrant allocation
- 8 U.S.C. 1184(o)(2), annual T visa cap
- 8 U.S.C. 1252, judicial review of orders of removal
About the Author
