In Sanchez v. Mullin, a Fourth Circuit decision decided August 14, 2026, the court addressed whether I-601A provisional waiver applicants—noncitizens married to U.S. citizens seeking lawful permanent residency—are protected from arrest and removal during the waiver process.
What changed
The District Court for Maryland had certified a class of couples and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, issuing class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief barring the government from interfering with plaintiffs’ participation in the waiver process through arrest or removal. Several noncitizen plaintiffs had been arrested by ICE at their immigration interviews, causing others to avoid or delay their own interviews out of fear of arrest and removal.
Upon review, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and held that the relevant regulations do not bar the government from arresting or removing noncitizens during the provisional waiver process and that the plaintiffs do not have a protected interest in accessing the process without risk of removal. The court also found the factual record insufficient to support the alternative theory that the government uses the waiver process to target noncitizens for removal.
The case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Why it matters
This decision eliminates what many practitioners relied on: a class-wide protective order preventing ICE enforcement against pending I-601A applicants across Maryland and the Fourth Circuit. A pending provisional waiver application does not legally protect applicants from being arrested, detained, or deported by ICE under the Fourth Circuit’s reading of the regulations.
If you represent clients with final removal orders pursuing I-601A waivers, this ruling changes the risk calculus. Even though the waiver, if granted, would allow the noncitizen to leave the country to complete consular processing without triggering a lengthy inadmissibility bar, the applicant now faces ICE enforcement exposure during the entire processing period—sometimes months.
For practitioners in the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction (Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina), this is binding precedent. Practitioners in other circuits should watch for similar arguments.
Way forward
-
Review pending cases. If you have I-601A applicants with final removal orders in Fourth Circuit states, reassess arrest risk and consider whether other protective measures (stay of removal, prosecutorial discretion requests, bond appeals) may be necessary.
-
Client communication. Advise waiver applicants of the current legal risk. The existence of a pending waiver is no longer a shield against ICE enforcement in this circuit.
-
Distinguish or appeal. If the remand produces an outcome favorable to plaintiffs on the factual record or alternative theories, note that the Fourth Circuit left the door open for reconsideration if evidence shows targeting. Monitor the district court proceedings.
-
Monitor Supreme Court. Other provisional waiver cases may be percolating up to higher courts, and the legal landscape may shift.
Disclaimer
This article summarizes a published federal appellate decision and is not legal advice. Folaform is not a law firm. Consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction for advice specific to your situation. Immigration law and policy change frequently; verify against the primary source linked above and current legal authorities before relying on this summary.