AI Generated Image (not the people or facilities involved in this story)
A federal judge has refused to let former enrollees of ICE’s fake University of Farmington sue as a class for tuition refunds, ruling that each student’s intent must be judged one by one.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has denied class certification in the long-running suit by foreign students who paid tuition to the University of Farmington, the sham Michigan school that immigration agents ran as a sting. In Tiyyagura v. United States, No. 20-1237C, Judge Armando O. Bonilla held that whether any enrollee can recover depends on what that person intended when paying, and that question cannot be answered for roughly 750 people at once. The opinion was filed under seal on Oct. 23, 2026 and made public on Nov. 4, after both sides said no redactions were needed. The five named plaintiffs, all Indian citizens, can still pursue their own claims at trial.
The ruling sharply narrows the path that opened in 2024, when the Federal Circuit revived the case and held that the students’ tuition claims could be heard. For the hundreds of former enrollees who are not named plaintiffs, many of them removed or back in India, there is now no group lawsuit that would recover money on their behalf.
What the sting looked like
According to the opinion, ICE authorized the undercover operation, code-named Operation Paper Chase, in September 2015 to target F-1 students seeking to keep their status without attending class, along with the recruiters who steered them. Homeland Security Investigations formed a company doing business as the University of Farmington, obtained state approval, SEVP certification and accreditation, rented a storefront campus in Farmington Hills, and launched a website in 2016. The school never offered a class. Between the fall of 2016 and January 2019 it enrolled more than 750 foreign nationals in nearly 40 states and collected over $6.5 million in tuition. Eight brokers and recruiters were prosecuted, and hundreds of enrollees were removed or left the country.
The named plaintiffs paid between $10,000 and $17,500 each, according to the court’s account of the record. Each received a Form I-20 after the first payment. The lead plaintiff, Ravi Teja Tiyyagura, came to the U.S. in 2015 to study at Northwestern Polytechnic University and was working on OPT when a recruiter referred him to Farmington, the opinion says. He returned to India the day after the sting went public.
Why intent decides the case
The court built on a point the Federal Circuit made in 2024: illegal contracts cannot be enforced, and Tiyyagura conceded he could not recover if he entered the agreement knowing it was illegal. Judge Bonilla drew the line this way. An enrollee who paid knowing there would be no classes, in order to keep F-1 status, made what the government calls a “pay to stay” deal and has no claim, under the rule that courts will not help a party recover money paid toward an illegal scheme. The court relied on cases including Kardoh v. United States (9th Cir. 2009), where a man who paid an undercover ICE agent $40,000 for forged green cards could not get the money back. An enrollee who genuinely paid for an education, by contrast, may have a valid contract claim.
The government’s evidence on that question is specific to each person. The court noted undercover audio or video recordings of four of the five named plaintiffs that, it said, suggest complicity in the scheme, including a November 2018 call in which an agent posing as a school official discussed a “special arrangement” to make up transcripts. The plaintiffs contend they did not know Farmington was a front; the court has not decided any individual’s intent. The judge wrote that he “struggles to imagine a case more ill-suited for class certification,” because intent has to be tested against each enrollee’s recruiter contacts, emails and recorded meetings.
The opinion also stresses that the Court of Federal Claims applies a stricter class-action rule than federal district courts: all seven requirements must be met. The court found that, apart from possibly numerosity and partly adequacy, the plaintiffs met none of them. It added that the four named plaintiffs facing recordings are unlikely to be typical of, or adequate representatives for, enrollees who acted in good faith. It did find plaintiffs’ counsel, Norris Law Group, qualified.
What it means for former enrollees
- No class recovery. Former enrollees who are not among the five named plaintiffs are not covered by this case. Anyone wanting a refund would need a claim of their own.
- Timing questions. Claims in the Court of Federal Claims generally must be filed within six years, under 28 U.S.C. 2501, and the sting ended in January 2019. Whether the pending class case paused that clock for others is a question for individual counsel.
- The evidence cuts both ways. The government has recordings, emails and recruiter files from the operation, and the court will weigh them for each claimant. A claim that puts a person’s intent at issue could also surface material relevant to future immigration filings.
- Good-faith enrollees still have a theory. The court expressly recognized that an enrollee who truly paid for classes may have an enforceable contract.
Dates and decisions to watch
- Trial on the five individual claims: No date has been reported; the opinion says the case now proceeds to trial, where each plaintiff’s intent will be the key issue.
- Possible appeal: Whether plaintiffs seek permission to appeal the class ruling to the Federal Circuit.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Sources
- Tiyyagura (a/k/a Teja Ravi) v. United States, No. 20-1237C (Fed. Cl.), Opinion and Order denying class certification (filed under seal Oct. 23, 2026; public Nov. 4, 2026), U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- Ravi v. United States, 104 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2024), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Court Rejects Indian Students’ Class-Action Bid for Tuition Refunds in University of Farmington Case, VisaVerge, Nov. 11, 2026
- 28 U.S.C. 2501, time for filing in the Court of Federal Claims, Cornell LII
About the Author
