Vaca Flores: D.N.J. Order on the Limits of a Pending U-Visa Petition

Vaca Flores v. Blanche, No. 2:26-cv-05446, ECF 13 (D.N.J. signed July 16, 2026; filed July 17, 2026), denied an emergency Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. The decision illustrates a basic limit on using a California humanitarian-relief class injunction in individual detention litigation: a pending U-visa petition does not by itself establish a right to release.

That injunction arose in Immigration Ctr. for Women & Children v. Noem, 351 F.R.D. 324 (C.D. Cal. 2026) (ICWC). The May 20 preliminary order provisionally certified three classes tied to pending U-visa, T-visa, or VAWA matters, existing U- or T-visa deferred action, and qualifying administrative-stay requests. It stayed specified guidance and enforcement policies for those defined classes, but did not declare that every person with a pending U-visa petition must be released. The New Jersey court’s treatment of that boundary is central to the order discussed here.

The claim presented

The petitioner was subject to a final removal order and invoked his status as a derivative beneficiary of a pending U-visa application, internal ICE guidance, and the preliminary injunction in ICWC. The court treated his custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and found that he had not shown a basis for reconsidering its earlier order.

How the court read ICWC

The court did not read ICWC to hold that every detained person with a pending U-visa application must be released. In that individual order, the court read ICWC as addressing specific statutory claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(d)(1), which governs administrative-stay requests by certain U- and T-visa applicants.

Why Section 1227(d)(1) did not control

The petitioner had not alleged that he requested an administrative stay under Section 1227(d)(1), that the government denied such a request, or that the government failed to make the prima facie determination discussed in ICWC. The court therefore found that the statutory violation addressed in the California class case was not implicated by his record.

Disposition

The court denied reconsideration and denied the requests for immediate release, return to New Jersey, and return of personal documents and property. It permitted the petitioner to seek reopening upon a material change in circumstances supported by new facts or legal authority and directed the clerk to maintain the closure of the matter.

Practical limit

A pending petition, an administrative-stay request, a prima facie determination, a bona fide determination, and deferred action are distinct events. A filing that relies on ICWC should identify which statutory procedure was triggered, what DHS did, and how the requested remedy follows from that record.