Status as of October 8, 2026. A federal district judge has stayed a Department of Homeland Security policy adopted in December 2025 that stopped the routine collection of biometrics from people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement who have pending applications with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The order is temporary while the lawsuit proceeds. DHS must report to the court on its compliance by October 21.

On October 7, U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali ordered DHS to restore the biometrics-collection arrangement that existed before the December 2025 policy. The ruling addresses a procedural obstacle faced by detained applicants whose USCIS cases require fingerprints, photographs or other biometric information. It does not decide whether any applicant qualifies for an immigration benefit.

The decision came in J.Z. et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-01510, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The 23-page memorandum opinion and order, Document 46, was entered on October 7, 2026.

What the court suspended

On December 5, 2025, USCIS announced that DHS generally would not collect biometrics from people held in immigration detention who had benefit requests pending with USCIS. The announcement distinguished those requests from certain applications pending before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the immigration court system.

The same policy removed guidance reflecting an internal arrangement under which ICE was responsible for collecting biometrics from people held in DHS facilities with pending USCIS cases. According to evidence discussed in the ruling, ICE had previously transported detainees to biometrics appointments or otherwise facilitated collection. That practice largely stopped after the policy change, although there were isolated exceptions.

The court stayed the December 2025 policy, the accompanying policy alert and the steps taken to implement it, including revisions to the USCIS Policy Manual and removal of ICE's responsibility under the previous departmental arrangement. The stay was issued under 5 U.S.C. § 705, a provision of the Administrative Procedure Act that allows a court to suspend agency action while it is being reviewed.

Which applications were affected?

The plaintiffs were people in ICE custody with pending USCIS applications that required biometrics. The court identified several types of cases:

  • Applications for lawful permanent residence;

  • Special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status for qualifying children;

  • T nonimmigrant status for certain trafficking survivors;

  • U nonimmigrant status for qualifying victims of specified crimes;

  • Requests involving certain spouses and children seeking to join a person already granted asylum.

The issue was not whether these individuals had a right to approval. USCIS needed biometric information to process their filings, but detention prevented them from attending ordinary appointments. As the court observed, 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(ii) permits an application to be treated as abandoned and denied after a missed required biometrics appointment unless USCIS accepts the explanation for the absence.

Why the judge found grounds for temporary relief

Judge Ali concluded that, on the preliminary record, the plaintiffs were likely to show that DHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling said the government had not adequately considered how ending biometrics collection could prevent detained people from pursuing USCIS applications, even if they might otherwise qualify for the status sought.

The government had argued that detained applicants might still attend appointments or ask ICE to collect biometrics voluntarily. The judge found that explanation unpersuasive because detained people cannot travel freely to USCIS appointments and the record did not establish a dependable substitute for the previous procedure.

The court also found the potential harm substantial: applicants could lose the opportunity to have claims adjudicated while facing continued detention or removal. These were findings for temporary relief, not a final decision on every claim pleaded in the lawsuit.

A stay, not a final judgment or a separate injunction

The plaintiffs sought both a stay under Section 705 and a preliminary injunction. The court granted the stay but denied the separate preliminary injunction, concluding that the stay was sufficient on the current record to restore the earlier policy arrangement. The ruling did not finally resolve the lawsuit or hold that every legal theory advanced by the plaintiffs had been proved.

Because the court suspended the challenged agency policy itself, the order is not framed solely as an instruction to process the biometrics of the named plaintiffs. But the ruling does not establish that all affected people have already received appointments, nor does it set a universal operational deadline for each pending application. The agencies' implementation remains to be documented.

What happens next?

The court directed the defendants to file a status report by October 21, 2026, explaining their compliance with the order. That filing should give the first formal account of the steps DHS and its components have taken to restore biometrics collection.

The October 7 order neither requires release from immigration detention nor grants permanent residence, a U visa, a T visa or any other immigration benefit. Those decisions remain subject to the ordinary eligibility and adjudication requirements. Any appeal or further district court ruling could also change the legal position.

Frequently asked questions

What did the judge order in J.Z. v. DHS?

On October 7, 2026, the judge stayed the December 2025 DHS biometrics policy under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act and restored the prior DHS biometrics-collection arrangement pending litigation. He denied a separate request for a preliminary injunction.

Which immigration applications were involved?

The court identified pending USCIS applications involving permanent residence, special immigrant juvenile status, T visas, U visas and petitions for certain relatives of people granted asylum.

Does the order grant immigration status or release anyone from detention?

No. The order concerns access to biometric collection for pending USCIS cases. It does not approve an immigration application or direct the release of detainees.

Official sources

Disclaimer: Factum Immigration provides general information, not legal advice. For guidance on an individual case, consult a licensed immigration attorney.