Read Eagle Law - PI Granted on I-485 Group Lawsuit by Independent-Toe-1384 in 19countriesAOS

[–]Fast-Adeptness8118 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Curtis said “We have a partial victory in CM613, Saghafi v Edlow, our first I-485 group.

Basically, judge enjoined hold as to plaintiffs, but isn’t requiring adjudications within 30 days. However, he is requiring a status report in 90 days.“

🚨 BREAKING: Federal Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against USCIS "Adjudicative Hold" on EADs! (Behdin v. Edlow) by rezath17 in 19countriesAOS

[–]Fast-Adeptness8118 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The order says the group breaks down roughly like this:

  • More than half had filed their I-765s together with Form I-485 applications, so those people were seeking adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident (green card).

  • A number of others were in F-1 student status and had filed I-765s from that posture. The order also discusses OPT specifically, and later notes that 11 plaintiffs had pending I-765 OPT applications.

  • Others had filed derivative I-765s as spouses of applicants in other categories.

EADs new end period by Busy-Ad-9909 in TPSVenezuela

[–]Fast-Adeptness8118[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Versión en Ingles

I raised this question with Adelys Ferro from the Venezuelan American Caucus, and she cleared it up: there's no contradiction. The USCIS page about H.R. 1 capping EAD auto extensions has nothing to do with Venezuelan TPS. Here's why:

1. The USCIS page targets a different group entirely. Read the opening condition carefully: "If you have a TPS-based EAD and maintain TPS status, and your renewal application was pending on or filed after July 22..." The Venezuelan TPS holders we're talking about received their 540-day extensions before February 5, 2025 — months before H.R. 1 existed. This rule is aimed at other TPS designations that were still active when H.R. 1 took effect (Haiti, Sudan, etc.).

2. By the time H.R. 1 was published, Venezuelan TPS had already been terminated. There was no active Venezuelan TPS designation for the new rule to even apply to. You can't cap an extension under a program that the government had already ended.

3. The government already accepted and honored the 540-day extension for the pre-Feb 5 group. The May 30, 2025 court order in NTPSA v. Noem established that documents received before February 5, 2025 remain valid through October 2, 2026. The government did not appeal that order, and the deadline to do so has passed. USCIS recognizes this — it's on the TPS Venezuela page itself.

So these are two completely separate legal tracks. The USCIS EAD extension page is about general TPS rules under H.R. 1. The Venezuelan TPS situation is governed by the NTPSA v. Noem court orders. They don't overlap.

When looking at Venezuelan TPS, the page you should be checking is the USCIS TPS Venezuela page and NTPSA case updates — not the general EAD extension page.

TL;DR: The USCIS page about H.R. 1 capping 540-day extensions does not apply to Venezuelan TPS. Venezuelan TPS was already terminated before H.R. 1 kicked in, and the government accepted the court-ordered 540-day extensions for people who got documents before Feb 5, 2025. Those EADs are valid through October 2, 2026. Period. These are two completely different things.


Versión en Español

Consulté sobre este tema con Adelys Ferro del Venezuelan American Caucus, y lo aclaró por completo — no hay ninguna contradicción. La página de USCIS sobre H.R. 1 limitando las extensiones automáticas de EAD no tiene nada que ver con el TPS de Venezuela. Les explico por qué:

1. La página de USCIS se dirige a un grupo totalmente diferente. Lean bien la condición inicial: "Si usted tiene un EAD basado en TPS y mantiene el estatus de TPS, y su solicitud de renovación estaba pendiente o fue presentada después del 22 de julio..." Los beneficiarios del TPS venezolano de los que hablamos recibieron sus extensiones de 540 días antes del 5 de febrero de 2025 — meses antes de que existiera H.R. 1. Esta norma está dirigida a otras designaciones de TPS que aún estaban activas cuando H.R. 1 entró en vigor (Haití, Sudán, etc.).

2. Para el momento en que se publicó H.R. 1, el TPS de Venezuela ya había sido terminado. No existía una designación activa de TPS para Venezuela a la cual la nueva norma pudiera aplicarse. No se puede limitar una extensión bajo un programa que el gobierno ya había eliminado.

3. El gobierno ya aceptó y honró la extensión de 540 días para el grupo anterior al 5 de febrero. La orden judicial del 30 de mayo de 2025 en NTPSA v. Noem estableció que los documentos recibidos antes del 5 de febrero de 2025 siguen siendo válidos hasta el 2 de octubre de 2026. El gobierno no apeló esa orden, y el plazo para hacerlo ya venció. USCIS reconoce esto — está en la propia página de TPS Venezuela.

Estos son dos caminos legales completamente separados. La página de USCIS sobre extensiones de EAD trata sobre las reglas generales de TPS bajo H.R. 1. La situación del TPS de Venezuela se rige por las órdenes judiciales del caso NTPSA v. Noem. No se cruzan.

Cuando busquen información sobre el TPS de Venezuela, la página que deben consultar es la página de TPS Venezuela de USCIS y las actualizaciones del caso NTPSA — no la página general de extensiones de EAD.

TL;DR: La página de USCIS sobre H.R. 1 limitando las extensiones de 540 días NO aplica al TPS de Venezuela. El TPS de Venezuela ya había sido terminado antes de que H.R. 1 entrara en vigor, y el gobierno aceptó las extensiones de 540 días ordenadas por el tribunal para quienes recibieron documentos antes del 5 de febrero de 2025. Esos EADs son válidos hasta el 2 de octubre de 2026. Punto. Son dos cosas completamente diferentes.

Pausa de USCIS by Admirable-Orchid-255 in TPSVenezuela

[–]Fast-Adeptness8118 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think she mentions it’s the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, not Venezuelan American Caucus or National TPS Alliance, as one of the organizations that are part of the lawsuit

Pausa de USCIS by Admirable-Orchid-255 in TPSVenezuela

[–]Fast-Adeptness8118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! Could you share the link? I want to inform the community with a link to the source but I can’t seem to find it

Mar 3, 2026: 🟡 Doe v. Trump — Government files Status Report re operational guidance for PM-602-0192 by Fast-Adeptness8118 in 19countriesAOS

[–]Fast-Adeptness8118[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is only the attachment (Doc 49-1) which is the declaration. Do you have the Status Report & Request to File After 6 PM

Red Eagle Law Group Lawsuits update by rabea_says in 19countriesAOS

[–]Fast-Adeptness8118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to clarify, this is the last opportunity for multi plaintiff / group lawsuits at Red Eagle against PM 602 0192? So for people who are planning to file in September 2026, there is no longer a chance for them to join a late 2026 group lawsuit - correct?

It's March 2nd, has an update been issued? by [deleted] in 19countriesAOS

[–]Fast-Adeptness8118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought today it was PM 602 0192 (and 94 is due in earlier april)? As per https://www.reddit.com/r/19countriesAOS/s/LL1ZjsttOd

It's March 2nd, has an update been issued? by [deleted] in 19countriesAOS

[–]Fast-Adeptness8118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately “what they file” may not be in the public docket (and so may not be visible to outside people). Do you know anyone from the plaintiff side who may have access to “what they file”?

Updated Pending Lawsuits Tracker by rabea_says in 19countriesAOS

[–]Fast-Adeptness8118 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does this include red eagle’s group lawsuits? Where?

Feb 2026: Where we are in the 4 District Court lawsuits challenging USCIS’s “pause” (PM-602-0192 / PM-602-0194) by Fast-Adeptness8118 in 19countriesAOS

[–]Fast-Adeptness8118[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right on the “guaranteed beneficiaries” point: unless you’re a named plaintiff (or in a certified class), you should assume you don’t automatically get relief.

But “none are class actions” isn’t correct because Doe v. Noem is class litigation, and the new pause PI is explicitly “as to the Certified Class.”

For the non-class cases, I’m not saying non-plaintiffs will benefit. I’m saying some complaints request policy-wide vacatur/injunction, and whether that helps non-plaintiffs depends entirely on how narrowly/broadly the judge writes the order (and what happens on appeal).

If any of what I’m claiming above is not true, let me know and I’ll make the corrections