By Scott Merrill
In a striking policy reversal, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced April 25 that it will no longer seek the removal of international students whose F-1 visa statuses were terminated without cause, affecting thousands of students nationwide and offering temporary relief to dozens in New Hampshire.
The reversal comes amid mounting legal pressure, including a class action lawsuit filed April 18 in federal court in New Hampshire by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire (ACLU-NH) and the law firm Shaheen & Gordon. The suit, representing more than 100 international students across New England and Puerto Rico, including five based in New Hampshire, claims their student immigration status was stripped arbitrarily in violation of federal guidelines.
“It is clear that the deluge of legal filings and initial judicial rulings in New Hampshire and nationwide have had a profound impact on the government’s decision to reactivate the SEVIS [Student and Exchange Visitor Information System] records of some students and allow them to continue their studies,” says ACLU-NH Legal Director Gilles Bissonnette. “Many questions remain, including the criteria that will be used for these reactivations.”
According to the complaint, students with no criminal convictions, unauthorized employment, or immigration violations suddenly found themselves marked as “out of status” in SEVIS, a federal web-based tracking tool used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
“This was an extraordinarily troubling and unjustified crackdown,” says Bissonnette. “These are students who followed every rule, invested their savings and futures in the US education system, and found themselves facing deportation – not for any wrongdoing, but because of vague, unexplained government decisions.”
Bissonnette says the ACLU will be confirming in coming days whether potential class members who have not sued the government will have their student status fully reactivated.
A Lawsuit with National Implications
The class action lawsuit, which seeks to reinstate the F-1 statuses of students affected since at least March 1, became a flashpoint in the national immigration debate. At the heart of the legal challenge is the distinction between student visa status – issued by a consulate before entry – and student status, which is maintained while in the US by remaining enrolled and complying with academic and legal requirements.
Under DHS regulations, student status can only be terminated for specific reasons: committing a violent crime, lying on a visa application, or working illegally. Plaintiffs in the case, including Haoyang An – a New Hampshire graduate student who has invested over $329,000 in his US education – say none of these criteria apply to them.
The lawsuit argues that even if a student visa is revoked by the State Department, it does not by itself justify terminating student status. This is supported by DHS guidance, which states, “Visa revocation is not, in itself, a cause for termination of the student’s SEVIS record.”
A Judge Intervenes in Dartmouth Student Case
In a separate but related case, a federal judge in Concord granted a preliminary injunction on April 29 to restore Xiaotian Liu’s F-1 legal status and allow him to continue his studies for the duration of the lawsuit.
Liu, a citizen of China, is a doctoral student studying and researching computer science at Dartmouth College. On April 4, he was informed by his university via email that his student status had been terminated by the DHS.
Shaheen & Gordon Immigration Law Chair Ronald Abramson said in a press statement, “This is an important moment for our client and for the Rule of Law. We are extremely pleased that the court saw through the government’s unfounded efforts to impede the academic progress and myriad contributions of the international student community.”
On May 12, US District Court Judge Samantha Elliott denied a DOJ motion to reconsider the preliminary injunction, allowing Liu to remain enrolled while the case proceeds.
ICE Enforcement Raises Further Concerns
Beyond the student visa crisis, immigration enforcement in New Hampshire has intensified. Under President Trump’s renewed immigration agenda and the controversial Laken Riley Act signed in January, the DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has expanded arrests and mandatory detentions of noncitizens charged with certain crimes, even misdemeanors.
Attorney Adam Bornstein, who represents multiple immigrants across New Hampshire, warns the situation is deteriorating rapidly.
“ICE is arresting people at arraignments, in court elevators, and outside courthouses,” he says. “They’re scooping people off the street, even those with no criminal convictions.”
Bornstein points to the case of Arnuel Marquez Colmenarez, a 33-year-old Venezuelan man arrested in February at a Nashua courthouse. The arrest, which injured a bystander, drew outrage after it emerged that Colmenarez had no violent criminal history.
“Clients are afraid to show up to court,” Bornstein says. “I can’t tell them to violate a court order, but if they appear, they risk immediate arrest and detention.”
287(g) Agreements Expand Local Role in Enforcement
Two New Hampshire counties – Belknap and Grafton – have joined ICE’s 287(g) program, delegating authority to local deputies to perform immigration enforcement duties.
Additionally, as of April 25, the New Hampshire State Police entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with ICE under the 287(g) Task Force model. While enforcement activities have not yet begun, the agreement allows for State Troopers to be trained and certified to perform certain immigration functions.
These practices have raised constitutional questions, especially when detainers are issued without criminal warrants. Immigration attorney Bruno D’Britto, who advises New Hampshire’s judicial system on access to justice issues, says ICE detentions in courthouses may violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
“We’ve already seen a judge in Massachusetts hold an ICE agent in contempt for making an arrest mid-proceeding,” D’Britto said, referring to the case of Boston Municipal Court Judge Mark Summerville, who held ICE Agent Brian Sullivan in contempt after Sullivan detained Wilson Martell-Lebron, a defendant in an ongoing trial, outside the courtroom.
Martell-Lebron was facing charges of making false statements on a driver’s license application when he was taken into custody during a trial recess. Judge Summerville criticized the arrest as a violation of Martell-Lebron’s right to a fair trial and due process.
“This isn’t just a legal technicality – it’s a fundamental breach of how justice is supposed to work in America,” D’Britto says.
The contempt finding against ICE Agent Brian Sullivan was later vacated by US District Court Judge William Young, who dismissed the case as moot after the Massachusetts Attorney General and the US Attorney agreed the order should be withdrawn.
A Legal Collision Course
D’Britto believes the growing number of legal challenges could force the Supreme Court to weigh in.
“We’re on a collision course,” he says. “This is about the limits of executive power, the rights of immigrants, and whether our legal system can protect due process in the face of aggressive federal overreach.”
Until then, legal advocates across New England are bracing for more terminations, more arrests, and more students left in legal limbo. The DOJ’s recent reversal of some students’ visas may offer a temporary reprieve, but for hundreds of students already flagged in the SEVIS system – and other undocumented immigrants swept into the ICE net – the future remains uncertain.
“There’s a real human cost to this,” says Bissonnette. “These aren’t numbers. These are lives, futures, and families caught in the crossfire of politics and policy.”