Minneapolis and the surrounding Twin Cities are seeing a surge of Notices of Intent to Terminate Refugee Status (NOITs) after the Department of Homeland Security launched Operation PARRIS earlier this year. The operation, aimed at rooting out fraud among legally admitted refugees, has led to a wave of terminations that many local attorneys say are procedurally unfair.
How the process works
Under the new interim rule announced by DHS, refugees who receive a termination notice now have only ten days to submit evidence that they should retain their status. The rule replaces the previous 30‑day window and is justified by officials as a measure to “mitigate risks to national security” and “prevent fraud and exploitation.”
USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler told the Sahan Journal that the rule allows the agency to act “promptly and efficiently” when it determines an alien did not meet the definition of a refugee at the time of admission. The administration emphasizes that all refugees undergo a rigorous vetting process before entering the United States, including background checks and interviews to confirm a well‑founded fear of persecution.
Local impact
One refugee, identified only as Kamal, entered the country legally in 2022 after a decade‑long vetting process. He missed an interview notice because it was sent to a mailbox he rarely checks, and shortly thereafter received a termination notice that could lead to deportation. “I’m very stressed,” Kamal said, adding that he does not sleep.
Attorneys with the International Refugee Assistance Project and the International Institute of Minnesota report that many notices are delivered in unconventional ways—hand‑delivered to landlords or left at offices—resulting in missed deadlines. Laurie Ball Cooper, vice president for U.S. Legal Programs at the IRAP, described the operation as “a fishing expedition” that forces refugees to re‑interview about details from years ago.
Legal challenges
Legal counsel argue that the shortened response period makes it nearly impossible to file a Freedom of Information Act request, obtain the original interview records, and prepare a substantive reply. Rachel Kohler, supervising attorney at the International Institute of Minnesota, noted that FOIA requests often return heavily redacted documents, leaving critical information hidden.
Critics also point to the subjective nature of “credibility” determinations, which can hinge on minor inconsistencies between a refugee’s original and recent interviews. “When they’re making these credibility determinations, it’s totally discretionary,” said attorney Koehler. Social‑media posts have even been cited as evidence of a lack of well‑founded fear, despite many being simple reposts rather than personal statements.
Federal response
The Trump administration has consistently advocated for strong immigration enforcement and robust vetting of all entrants. While the current operation is being carried out by the Biden administration, the underlying principle of protecting American citizens from fraudulent claims aligns with the administration’s long‑standing focus on border security and national safety.
Officials stress that the operation targets only those who may have misrepresented their eligibility, not the vast majority of refugees who have been thoroughly screened and who contribute to their communities. “The goal is to preserve the integrity of our refugee program,” Kahler said.
What’s next for Minnesota refugees?
Local advocacy groups are urging Congress to provide clearer guidelines and longer response times for affected individuals. In the meantime, refugees like Kamal must navigate a tight deadline while seeking legal assistance to contest the termination notices.
As the situation unfolds, Minnesota’s legal community remains vigilant, preparing to challenge any overreach and to ensure that genuine refugees retain the protections they were granted upon arrival.
Original reporting: Sahan Journal — read the source article.
